[SAFE] keepalive battery consumption

(I am CC'ing the SAFE mailing list, as the motivation for reducing keepalives
came up during SAFE.)

Citation:
http://tinyurl.com/3c63ef [IEEE]

  "Energy Consumption of Always-On Applications in WCDMA Networks"
   Haverinen, H.; Siren, J.; Eronen, P.
   Vehicular Technology Conference, 2007. VTC2007-Spring. IEEE 65th
   Volume , Issue , 22-25 April 2007 Page(s):964 - 968
   Digital Object Identifier   10.1109/VETECS.2007.207

    Summary: Always-on applications, such as push email and
    voice-over-IP, are characterized by the need to be constantly
    reachable for incoming communications. In the presence of
    stateful firewalls or NATs, such applications require
    "keep-alive" messages to maintain up-to-date connection state
    in the firewall or NAT, and thus preserve reachability. In
    this paper, we analyze how these keep-alive messages
    influence battery lifetime in WCDMA networks. Using
    measurements in a 3G network, we show that the energy
    consumption is significantly influenced by the radio resource
    control (RRC) parameters and the frequency of keep-alive
    messages. The results suggest that especially UDP-based
    protocols, such as mobile IPv4 and IPsec NAT traversal
    mechanisms, require very frequent keep-alives that can lead
    to unacceptably short battery lifetimes."

I expect we can find a way for the paper to be made available to non-IEEE
members.  Pasi?

-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Ford [mailto:baford@MIT.EDU] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:03 AM
> To: behave@ietf.org
> Subject: [BEHAVE] RE: A simpler way to reduce keepalive 
> traffic (Frank W.Miller)
> 
> Frank W. Miller wrote:
> > Since I was not able to attend the BoF, could you provide a 
> synopsis  
> > of why
> > this consensus was arrived at?  Specifically, can you describe any
> > deployment scenarios that were quantitatively presented that have  
> > difficulty
> > with the "chattiness" you are referring to?  I will assume that the
> > chattiness is primarily a problem for the STUN servers that are  
> > servicing
> > the keepalives.  What kind of data was presented to support this  
> > problem?
> 
> The minutes don't appear to be on-line yet, but they should be soon,  
> and the presentation slides (at least the version before the  
> presentation - some modifications were made during it) are available  
> on the "meeting materials" page at: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/70/materials.html
> 
> The biggest motivation seemed to be the drain on the battery 
> power of  
> wireless devices: someone offered the anecdote that he'd 
> observed 50%  
> of the power of some devices go to keepalive transmissions, 
> although I  
> don't remember any "hard" data presented to back this up.  Maybe  
> someone else on the list can point to some?
> 
> Cheers,
> Bryan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

_______________________________________________
SAFE mailing list
SAFE@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/safe