Re: Reducing the battery impact of ND

[Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]>]

On 1/22/14 1:52 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
> Erik,
>
>>>>      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."
>>
>> I think that text can be read in different ways.
>>
>> One way is within the scope of the  initial configuration (which is what the RSs are for) is robust even if there are no unsolicited multicast RAs.
>>
>> Another way is that the document intended to get rid of the need for unsolicited multicast RAs.
>>
>> Based on the title, name, and content of the document, my conclusion is that the first reading is much more accurate.
>
> the first reading implies that the host looses connectivity after router lifetime seconds.
> "never sent" doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

That would only be true if resilent-rs claims that no periodic 
unsolicited RAs are needed. I don't see any such text in the protocol 
specification in that draft (section 2-4). The introductory text talks 
about scenarios, and perhaps that scenario text doesn't match what the 
proposed protocol actually does?

Thus the document needs to be more clear.

Regards,
    Erik