Re: [v6ops] Link layer lossage [DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem]

Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> Tue, 29 October 2013 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@inex.ie>
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 AAD5321E8094 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TL97iLAlubzv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720CD21E809C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.foobar.org ([IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100::110]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9TM5FHU025363 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 22:05:15 GMT (envelope-from nick@inex.ie)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.netability.ie: Host [IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100::110] claimed to be cupcake.foobar.org
Message-ID: <5270311B.5010703@inex.ie>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 22:05:15 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <CE8E8EC3.59F3A%victor@jvknet.com> <06601039-CAFD-49B0-918B-A8ACD51B978D@fugue.com> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1310281905440.11422@ayourtch-mac> <CAKD1Yr0qLd7syFizEUMa6DM2a2LY6Rv5GSFyoQAs4Pir6gcNkA@mail.gmail.com> <1383036443.56704.YahooMailNeo@web142501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <52702860.9090503@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52702860.9090503@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
X-Company-Info-1: Internet Neutral Exchange Association Limited. Registered in Ireland No. 253804
X-Company-Info-2: Registered Offices: 1-2, Marino Mart, Fairview, Dublin 3
X-Company-Info-3: Internet Neutral Exchange Association Limited is limited by guarantee
X-Company-Info-4: Offices: 4027 Kingswood Road, Citywest, Dublin 24.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org" <draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Link layer lossage [DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 22:05:26 -0000

On 29/10/2013 21:28, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> That may in fact be exactly the wrong advice. At least, the results
> I've seen on Coded TCP suggest that retransmission managed by the link
> layer can do more harm than good, compared to a smart transport layer
> designed for uncongested lossy paths.

if you could explain it to my GPRS cellular provider that doing 40 second
RTT isn't actually helpful, I'd really appreciate it.  Particularly when
all the retransmissions count towards my monthly data budget.

Nick