IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Interest in energy consumption of IPv6 smartphones (vs. IPv4)

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 21 September 2016 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49A3812B024 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hd4Y3kJ7Bc87 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76F9B126B6D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id u8LB1saf006757; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:01:54 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8BD7B20641D; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:01:54 +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 6E5E92063C4; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:01:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id u8LB1skp029230; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:01:54 +0200
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, "Heatley, Nick" <nick.heatley@ee.co.uk>
References: <20160211191203.4120F180472@rfc-editor.org> <5099e169-696d-54ec-a4a7-8cc773e358c5@gmail.com> <4B8679AA-6FA4-4D9F-A7DD-C8DD6F525EC6@cisco.com> <5fcbf830-fc25-7394-5c8a-55dc9189b462@gmail.com> <CAMugd_V-=2woJZPQUSzDYacxZVSW-9H5S8x5Qx=VxNc5_iGerQ@mail.gmail.com> <093d3a00-a2cc-c6d9-8939-56114eb4a461@gih.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B2131714501A@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <20160603021720.15D9E4AA4453@rock.dv.isc.org>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c3b57005-7197-97fd-747d-5429ad319c98@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:01:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160603021720.15D9E4AA4453@rock.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/TW_JEugeztl4fk_f3LUB8cQUKzE>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Interest in energy consumption of IPv6 smartphones (vs. IPv4)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 21 Sep 2016 11:02:02 -0000

Le 03/06/2016 à 04:17, Mark Andrews a écrit :
>
> While reducing power consumtion is a good thing, we will be wasting
> peoples time to compare IPv6 vs IPv4 power consumption.  Don't we
> have better things to do than to waste peoples time on the academic
> exercise which will produce nothing useful.

Hi,

Independently of qualifying academic exercises, I think this data can be
useful, among others: (1) when short on battery know what to turn off
and (2) protocol design like 6lo limit to how much the improvements
should try to save compared to vanilla IPv6.

Preliminary measurements on an Android smartphone running live video,
pre-recorded video, web browsing and ftp on 3G seem to exhibit slightly
higher platform uA/h discharge on IPv6 than on IPv4.

Is there any published data along similar lines: IPv4-vs-IPv6 energy
consumption on smartphone apps on cellular?

Alex

>
> Mark
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email