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

It makes sens Lorenzo to have exact values...but these values should be
expressed using a formula not arbitrary !

Best regards
Nabil    نبيل

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <ayourtch@gmail.com
> > 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>