Re: Reducing the battery impact of ND

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Lorenzo,

>     One of your "yes please" below is a change to ND - Andrew's b) about
>     restarting RS would require a (small) standards update.
> 
> 
> We should try to get that into draft-6man-resilient-rs.
> 
> It seems to be out of scope for the problem resilent-rs set out to solve which was loss issues for the initial RS. It might not be wise to expand that drafts scope to also cover (part of) efficient-nd.

the abstract has the following text:
   "Furthermore, on some links, unsolicited multicast
   Router Advertisements are never sent and the mechanism in this
   document is intended to work even in such scenarios."

> To my mind, sending an RS when the RA lifetime is about to expire is a robustness fix, not an efficiency fix. In a world where IPv6 is optional and IPv4 is the main protocol, just having your IPv6 address expire is not necessarily a problem. But in a world where IPv6 is the main protocol, then hosts will probably want to try harder to keep their IPv6 address around.

I believe you have found a bug in the resilient-rs draft.
could you reply to the WGLC thread for that document and notify the authors?

cheers,
Ole