[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rethinking autoconfig, was Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:02:43 +0200
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
> [Tried to send this message to v6ops because of the DHCPv6 discussion
> there, went to the ipv6 list instead, trying again...]
>
>
> On 17-aug-2007, at 22:09, james woodyatt wrote:
>
> >> To stop unnecessary DHCP traffic. [...]
>
> > I think what we're seeing here is a vocal faction of the community
> > who believe that DHCP discovery multicasts are always necessary,
> > whether RA is present or not, and whether M=0 or M=1, despite the
> > text in RFC 2462.
>
> Right.
>
<snip>
Commenting only specifically on the following :
>
> The goal is to make server-assisted autoconfiguration much more
> useful, and reduce the number of packets in general and multicast
> packets in particular, as well as any delays or timeouts in the
> autoconfiguration process.
>
What is the motive for reducing the number of packets, and multicast in
particular? I seem to remember a comment in this or a related thread,
regarding concerns that multicast traffic will decrease battery life on
portable wireless devices. If that is a concern, wouldn't it be better
for the the "ultra" power conscious layer 2 to operate in an NBMA
model, rather than a BMA model, avoiding broadcasts or multicasts
completely?
Regards,
Mark.