Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption WGLC

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Networks that serve battery-powered devices should try to maximize the
> interval between the  multicast RAs within the limits allowed by
> protocol - unless the information in the RA packet has changed. On the
> other hand, the maximum value should be bound to allow a sufficient
> number of RAs to be sent within the router/prefix lifetimes - to
> account for the potential packet loss in the wireless network. This
> packet loss will depend on the quality of the radio spectrum/coverage
> and may need to be decided on a per-network basis. In the best-case
> scenario one would ensure that at least 3 (a chosen arbitrary value)
> RAs are transmitted within the smallest of the lifetimes for the
> parameters contained within the RA.
>

I'd still prefer to have an absolute lifetime here, expressed in minutes.
Otherwise network administrators will do silly things like set max interval
= 12s, lifetime = 4s. I say "will" instead of "might" because I have
personally seen this happen on a network whose administrators should have
known better.

You make a very good point that text must be clear that this only applies
to periodic RAs, *not* to RAs sent when something has changed.