Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 22 July 2015 12:12 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549021A0390 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 05:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S8-HnWrz4XYJ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 05:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 601771A0173 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 05:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id t6MCCGE6022761; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:12:16 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 584652027AA; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:15:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5E22027A8; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:15:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.84.215]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id t6MCCFIh022549; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:12:15 +0200
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
References: <201507071147.t67Bl13m009348@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <CAO42Z2x7mNFbB_w_+W+80pY+LeCAKXaOBXMmQvkcaMSWhwW60g@mail.gmail.com> <EF21B630-5D0A-415A-A93F-9058900CC80C@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2zAqMXhBZ2wa=q0wtHGhMpMWU9TSjfFyd2quiki9w0oSw@mail.gmail.com> <85CADAA2-8DF2-4A6B-812B-7A77081936F5@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2w3fOxGJHasKqYZRfGZ2u=7FnZBm+jgLtgDvfZ7HYW=iw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z+DwOin23HQTysrZ9dNP924+LQ-vOExmJc_xZUEB4yCQ@mail.gmail.com> <228248C6-94FE-4C9C-A875-F732EFDC6601@cisco.com> <55AD3B64.5070400@acm.org> <CAPi140P+kfpyQKzCRDA7bZQRowQx_YRcZYa85hHe64g4AvsVTg@mail.gmail.com> <C5901B99-F3A7-4DB0-8216-38D95EA89D6A@delong.com> <CAMugd_Xox_zYv6oftPdAZVZGz+FYZo+Dm-QRSSn4pMEj-x1XjA@mail.gmail.com> <55AF0964.1060006@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2y7e3bK8oYorCBPfdBAiyEkY5JJLaE+ixGczQdDjSPuw@mail.gmail.com> <55AF878E.1090200@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1xnKaYrFG4izZ4MbB1aRh89CGzTkc1ZjjryOgvdN0hQw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55AF889F.6080206@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:12:15 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1xnKaYrFG4izZ4MbB1aRh89CGzTkc1ZjjryOgvdN0hQw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/0wAFbquPQ69LyJnejM6lPMqYsto>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:12:24 -0000
"... on Androids and iPhones"? But not on huawei E392. Alex Le 22/07/2015 14:10, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit : > I'm told the problem affects iPhones as well. > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Alexandru Petrescu > <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote: > > "Reducing battery impact of RAs on Androids"? > > Alex > > Le 22/07/2015 12:22, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit : > > Thanks for all the feedback. We have posted a -01 addressing > some of the > feedback we got. The new version also contains a new > recommendation not > to send periodic RAs too frequently, so we have changed the title to > "Reducing battery impact of Router Advertisements". > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast-01 > > If there are no objections, we will upload this as a WG document > in the > next few days. > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Alejandro Acosta > <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com > <mailto:alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com> > <mailto:alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com > <mailto:alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > > Hi There, > I also support this document, it's very positive to see > that this > algorithm will save energy. > > Regards, > > Alejandro, > > El 7/21/2015 a las 6:11 PM, Nabil Benamar escribió: > > Hi Folks, > > I support this document which is very informative, > useful and its > implementation will certainly reduce energy consumption > due to > excessive Multicast RA sent. The proposed algorithm > seems to be > suitable for this end ! > > > Best regards > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong > <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com> > <mailto:owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>>> wrote: > > It seems to me that the following algorithm would be > relatively easy to implement > and provide reasonable network optimization… > > > On receipt of an RS: > > if(multicast_ra_time_remaining > 15 seconds) > { > Send_Unicast_ra > } > else > { > Send_Multicast_ra > reset_multicast_timer > } > > In this way, if the timing is reasonably close, you > multicast > a packet you were about to send > anyway, but if the timing isn’t close, you’re not > wasting > multicast bandwidth answering a single > node where nobody else cares. > > Overall, I’ve always thought that multicast > response to RS was > kind of silly. It’s probably most > harmful on WiFi. > > Owen > > > On Jul 21, 2015, at 02:33 , Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko > <ayourtch@gmail.com <mailto:ayourtch@gmail.com> > <mailto:ayourtch@gmail.com <mailto:ayourtch@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > > > On 7/20/15, Erik Nordmark > <<mailto:nordmark@acm.org > <mailto:nordmark@acm.org>>nordmark@acm.org > <mailto:nordmark@acm.org> > > <mailto:nordmark@acm.org > <mailto:nordmark@acm.org>>> wrote: > >> On 7/17/15 9:34 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >>>> So the next logical thing to do would be to > have the > router default to > >>>> unicast Router Advertisements, measure the rate of > received Router > >>>> Solicitations, and switch to multicast RA mode > past a certain > >>>> threshold to cover this sort of situation. > Once the > number of RSes > >>>> falls, it switches back to unicast RA mode. > >>>> > >>>> That would get rid of the configuration knob > proposed in > this ID, and > >>>> is behaviour that I think could be universal > for all link > types, > >>>> rather than just for the case of wireless ones > with > mobile devices. > >>> If it were me implementing it, I think I would > go about > this in a little > >>> different way, hopefully simpler. I would want > to send at > most one (e.g., > >>> either zero or one) RA per some interval (a > second?). In > the normal case, > >>> that is sent unicast. However, having sent a > unicast RA at > time t, if I > >>> now receive another RS before t+1, I send the > next one (at > time t+1) as a > >>> multicast. > >> > >> First of all I support this document as a WG > document. > >> > >> But in terms of implementation, isn't it simpler to > always(*) respond to > >> a RS with a unicast RA? > > > > Yes. I did not respond on-list yet - but from > operational > perspective > > "always send solRA unicast" / "always send solRA > multicast" > definitely > > wins in my book, and I'd avoid premature > optimizations (but > maybe we > > can say the implementers are explicitly free to > do their own > > optimizations if they see fit) > > > > That said, will be very interesting to hear data > from folks > who will > > run "all-unicast solRA", in real networks and > then compare > the effect > > of their proposal optimizations on their > real-world scenarios. > > > >> As background, the text in RFC4861 comes from > the old > concern that all > >> devices might boot at the same time when the > power is > re-established > >> after a building power failure; that doesn't > happen since > most devices > >> (laptops, smartphones, IoT devices) have > batteries today. > In that case > >> it might have made sense to sending fewer RA > messages by > using multicast. > >> > >> (*) the only case in RFC 4861 when I think a > multicast > response might be > >> considered is when the source IPv6 address in > the RS is the > unspecified > >> address. Further, an implementation which rate > limits > received RS > >> packets (e.g., CoPP in a router) might also want > to detect > when the rate > >> limit might have dropped RS packets and > multicast an RA in > that case. > >> > >> > >> I do wonder why implementations haven't already > changed to > send unicast > >> solicited RA, and whether it would make a > difference if we > have an > > > > TBH that's my concern as well. I think we should > tweak the > text in > > 4861 to encourage a bit more consideration on the > implementer's side. > > > >> informational document asking them to do this. > Alternatively we could > >> have a proposed standard which updates section > 6.2.6 to > change the "MAY > >> unicast" to a "SHOULD unicast". > > > > Yeah, I actually have had the different text > aimed for 6man, but > > Lorenzo's concern was 6man would say "there is no > protocol > update > > here, go away", so he rewrote it for v6ops. > > > > We should probably discuss this at the mic and > get the > opinion of the > > 6man chairs - if there is no outright "no" on this, a > normative doc > > would be a better way to convince the implementers ? > > > >> > >> FWIW the draft incorrectly refers to section > 6.2.4 instead > of 6.2.6. > > > > Nice catch, thanks! > > > > --a > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Erik > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> v6ops mailing list > >>> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> > <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> v6ops mailing list > >> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> > <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > v6ops mailing list > > v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> > <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> > <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> > <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org > <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > >
- [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-un… fred
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Tore Anderson
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Tarko Tikan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alejandro Acosta
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Jared Mauch
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith