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

Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com> Wed, 22 July 2015 03:09 UTC

Return-Path: <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com>
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 70C371ACD0E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 AQOAxEoT5d8F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22d.google.com (mail-ig0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C59721ACD2C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so79171089igb.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=qlPAygV6V+d6piHENj0CXfv+IL8+FHV+RSBUWDY7Hyo=; b=eRXINWo2QoaARp8VlqsqR5vF6XYE8Zqe9nTe1kR+a+YoQA/4dsTwpC5MP1eXSPYfOe O2OGBAyiA68gSLOtCopwnu/tlmiaKCNn2DgxQjEtfhmlibC+1fuNyt356l2T0og8QLOv pvf5oLK0pVztFF3/bkvrVwyblrHyvSLb6KT96s1FcJynqMWaOFNdZf5MTX0yRFB3VMsK 2myyZF41AlKXZLkCZd7I/dEXajYN1acus14zZdGta9kth0XJUBAbzPxmbMTENdZXwGje VenE76rerU69P/sZyWa+bLUZmV7IetLSLghiPkQDftgIahIWlz++oJo+/K7jTjt+pxs+ bbDg==
X-Received: by 10.50.40.39 with SMTP id u7mr1505898igk.71.1437534571204; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.16.18.112] ([142.55.0.11]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 69sm54405ioz.10.2015.07.21.20.09.28 for <v6ops@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <201507071147.t67Bl13m009348@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <CAO42Z2x7mNFbB_w_+W+80pY+LeCAKXaOBXMmQvkcaMSWhwW60g@mail.gmail.com> <EF21B630-5D0A-415A-A93F-9058900CC80C@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2zAqMXhBZ2wa=q0wtHGhMpMWU9TSjfFyd2quiki9w0oSw@mail.gmail.com> <85CADAA2-8DF2-4A6B-812B-7A77081936F5@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2w3fOxGJHasKqYZRfGZ2u=7FnZBm+jgLtgDvfZ7HYW=iw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z+DwOin23HQTysrZ9dNP924+LQ-vOExmJc_xZUEB4yCQ@mail.gmail.com> <228248C6-94FE-4C9C-A875-F732EFDC6601@cisco.com> <55AD3B64.5070400@acm.org> <CAPi140P+kfpyQKzCRDA7bZQRowQx_YRcZYa85hHe64g4AvsVTg@mail.gmail.com> <C5901B99-F3A7-4DB0-8216-38D95EA89D6A@delong.com> <CAMugd_Xox_zYv6oftPdAZVZGz+FYZo+Dm-QRSSn4pMEj-x1XjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55AF0964.1060006@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 22:39:24 -0430
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMugd_Xox_zYv6oftPdAZVZGz+FYZo+Dm-QRSSn4pMEj-x1XjA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050007020208010703050102"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/zku2dMJuaBNGJd9lJe0LxRmkHXY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast
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: <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, 22 Jul 2015 03:09:34 -0000

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 <owen@delong.com
> <mailto:owen@delong.com>> 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
>     <ayourtch@gmail.com <mailto:ayourtch@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > On 7/20/15, Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org
>     <mailto:nordmark@acm.org>> 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
>     >>> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>     >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> v6ops mailing list
>     >> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>     >>
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > v6ops mailing list
>     > v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops