IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Thoughts on draft-yourtchenko-ra-dhcpv6-comparison

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 16 December 2013 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 7B2B51ADFFE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 06:25:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 EMWPBuH7n7lt for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 06:25:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD9F1ADFF2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 06:25:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Files: signature.asc : 496
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoFAHsMr1KQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABZgwq5foEmFnSCJQEBBAF5EAtGVwaIDwiwLZdIF45LTgeDI4ETAQOQM5l3gys7
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.95,495,1384300800"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="1706171"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2013 14:25:06 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-106-87.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-106-87.cisco.com [10.61.106.87]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rBGEP6hd011683 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:25:06 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ABA9F5F4-BC7A-49E8-B5AE-D45245E0536F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3J_MYjxmifP7j--2xcR6mOhSbUnPGQjX0G4+AxhJqFpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:25:05 +0100
Message-Id: <94433006-8AF6-45ED-B247-03EC1B397356@employees.org>
References: <CAKD1Yr0evKjEEvErq3T=nU6_joat8duseraJJDZ4OHPK9NGWDA@mail.gmail.com> <D1A3AA08-F644-4C43-87DA-06028A781166@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr3J_MYjxmifP7j--2xcR6mOhSbUnPGQjX0G4+AxhJqFpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thoughts on draft-yourtchenko-ra-dhcpv6-comparison
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: <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: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:25:09 -0000

Lorenzo,

> > Second: some of the text you have now deals with link-layer performance. However, I think that since these are configuration protocols, the attributes that are important are primarily semantics, not performance or implementation.
> 
> Lorenzo, this is kind of a puzzling position to take.   There are lots of ways to do things with really nice semantics that fall on their face for performance reasons.   So I think performance questions are in scope.
> 
> Oh, of course - in general, they are. But here the protocols used are so similar that there is little substantive difference in performance.

could you expand on that?
I see the scaling properties on a multicast capable link very different between the two.
take a multicast capable link with 10K nodes on it, where power has just come back.
a few hundred RS/RA messages, at least 40K DHCPv6 messages.

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email