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
- [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-un… fred
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Tore Anderson
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Tarko Tikan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alejandro Acosta
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Jared Mauch
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-r… Mark Smith