IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] As promised...

Francisco Paletta <francisco@assembler.com.br> Thu, 23 July 2015 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <francisco@assembler.com.br>
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 08E621B29F1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 cc9GU6CMvdZc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vn0-f42.google.com (mail-vn0-f42.google.com [209.85.216.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F8561B29F3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vnaa140 with SMTP id a140so63313451vna.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=QULViasKva7fUKdx3ZH7R7iD1JehYtZJymVcl/KQc/M=; b=KzjcMB3Dd4p6KhrsylcHiacPtkl6RpA0DFpnrDjCV4Sbxa29gF5523bSRw0UR3oI1p z6YLQfDIFWoZePHKgE8ndxtJYtjRSGB6D9+UkYAPucMvq/63MpDk4erMkbv/CBdEZjB/ C8aY81Ndyx4S6q4ZJqfRLZ04aHlmlDpG5CpdexdAv6T2tcLjhsaW+tbiYb1jWMZiKvV2 S7owugcGu+6vaHff0VTHhx5X6woIw7Ot+t8YgLYhbnAVa6TsxLUrS2Kv4SXP7XkOHx5v rI7jaJ4vMu38AmJ0Eh+wGIB/Io3+PZTJgUtX5tM9cycHknfsBSO153QHo6uWSWlhWH7O 19qg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl3HOTWUsOm1BuJ8y3MD7xDIaJ1MBokpLDjOkjkI4KKOmtv9ezpyjFDeQ8ZTJbS7ynk2ZdG
X-Received: by 10.52.92.110 with SMTP id cl14mr2674986vdb.35.1437673175578; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vn0-f50.google.com (mail-vn0-f50.google.com. [209.85.216.50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ef1sm1164554vdb.5.2015.07.23.10.39.35 for <v6ops@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vnk197 with SMTP id 197so63278115vnk.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.17.2 with SMTP id k2mr10992840vdd.15.1437673175033; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.206.193 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E8058299-E0DF-487A-BAB5-31B7A5EAC3B9@cisco.com>
References: <E8058299-E0DF-487A-BAB5-31B7A5EAC3B9@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:39:34 -0300
Message-ID: <CAM86=bfaeu7T+wjYc1Xe5B2Kzkp6sDz==C0dQ9bcY0yhrBL=mA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francisco Paletta <francisco@assembler.com.br>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11365fb0e6bf6d051b8e5ee2"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/MjTIGLKrKLEKlBPEtJ69YM0FKz4>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] As promised...
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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:39:39 -0000

Hello,

I believe it's a good "best practice".

I just have suggestions regarding the "3. Consequences" points 2 and 3.
Despite the fact that frequent RA messages are causing those consequences,
they should not be used as base to support this recommendation.

In my opinion, the frequency or broadness of RA messages should not cause a
device to disrupt it's communication. The device must deal with it another
way. Obviously they can benefit from the changes in RA messages behaviors.
But should not be the motivation.

Nevertheless I agree that once the device receives an information and have
to deal with it, it spends power on that process and we should control that
to favor battery-powered devices.

Regards,

Francisco Paletta


2015-07-23 10:10 GMT-03:00 Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com>:

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption
>   "Reducing energy consumption of Router Advertisements", Andrew
>   Yourtchenko, Lorenzo Colitti, 2015-07-23,
>
> We had quite a bit of discussion Tuesday, especially considering the
> length (or brevity) of this draft.
>
> I'd suggest you read it. Especially given the number of "+2" comments on
> the list, I tend to think we can come to consensus relatively quickly on
> it. If there are lingering issues, let's get them out of the way.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email