Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

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 <
[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 7/20/15, Erik Nordmark < <[e-mail]>[e-mail]> 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
>> >>> [e-mail]
>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> v6ops mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > v6ops mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>