Re: Reducing the battery impact of ND

[Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]>]

On 1/30/14 2:22 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> Erik,
>
>> The frustrating thing is that the same folks that argue that the WG shouldn't work on a different design (targeting multicast challenged links), keep on suggesting tweaks. If the WG thinks we should work on improving ND for such links (and perhaps also improve it for battery operated hosts), then let's do that work. If not, then let's stop suggesting tweaks.
> before designing anything new, I would like to see:
>   - a clear description of the problem(s)
>   - an analysis of how well we can do with existing protocols
>
> does that sound fair?
efficient-nd has that. If there are specific requests to clarify its 
description I'm all ears.

But perhaps we should first determine whether the WG wants to work on 
something in this area, and whether efficient-nd is a reasonable 
starting point.

So far I hear folks saying that we shouldn't work on this area, but at 
the same time providing suggestions (which have some issues as we've 
seen on the list) to improve things.
So I'm confused.

    Erik