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

[Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <[e-mail]>]

On 8/27/15, Ray Hunter (v6ops) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> [e-mail] wrote:
>> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption.
>> Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested
>> wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater
>> issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional
>> issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the
>> list.
>>
>> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the
>> document as well as its content. If you have read the document and
>> believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important
>> comment to make.
>>
>>
> I have read this draft. I understand the motivation, it is clearly
> written, and I support it.
>
> Minor Suggestions:
>
> I'd reference 4861 in the first sentence of the intro.
> s/Routing information is communicated to IPv6 hosts by Router
> Advertisement messages. /Routing information is communicated to IPv6
> hosts by Router Advertisement messages [RFC4861]/

Thanks, noted!

>
> Recommendation 2 is redundant IMHO. THere's no way a router manufacturer
> can really know if the devices it is serving are battery powered devices
> or not (perhaps the subject of another draft e.g. perhaps extension to
> 4620 to discover this via NI on creating a new ND cache entry?)

It's not entirely redundant, the intent here is that this mechanism is
enabled on the network, which has two parts:

1) the equipment on the network has an option to enable it. (e.g. the
administrator needs to ensure that their equipment supports it).

2) the administrator has enabled it. (e.g. today's Cisco
implementation simply has the command "ipv6 nd ra solicited unicast"
which needs to be configured).

How about a small tweak as below:

"2) Administrators of networks that serve large numbers (tens or
hundreds) of battery-
       powered devices SHOULD enable this behaviour."

>
> For recommendation 3: the timing recommendations should be more
> concrete, provided rough consensus can be achieved. In order to maximize
> the benefit I'd suggest specifying the upper end of the suggested ranges.

I tend to configure such networks with the RA interval of 1800
seconds, with router lifetime of 9000 seconds (and when
draft-krishnan-6man-maxra gets through, will be happy to bump those
values up to 21K and 64K respectively). Lorenzo's take is that "every
few minutes is already much better than every 3 seconds".

So, based on my today's knowledge the upper limit is whatever is
enforced by the protocol + the usual "three-RA-per-lifetime" rule of
thumb - which looks to be in line with the text in the draft that does
not specify any upper bound.

Does the text suggest differently ?

>
> s/Networks that serve battery-powered devices /Routers with network
> interfaces that are known to serve battery-powered devices/
>

Thanks, noted!

--a

>
>
> --
> regards,
> RayH
> <https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>
>