Soliman, Hesham wrote:
Hi Bernie,
> > => You can try, but my concern is about how often you're
> going to try.
> > If there are bits that say whether you should try or not and those
> > bits are not set (i.e. no DHCP server in the network), why
> > would you try?
>
> This means that the wiresless operators will get more revenue from
> Ralph!
>
> If the wireless operator isn't using DHCP (or only using stateless),
> there's no reason they can't charge for that (stateful) traffic.
=> :) I don't want them to charge users for Ralph's implementation :)
But seriously, charging is one thing, inefficient use of power is
another serious problem which can actually reduce revenue because
a device doesn't go dormant long enough and runs out of battery
instead of using that battery power for what the user actually wants
to do.
I tend to agree with Hesham that we should attempt to design
our protocols so that unnecessary periodic probing over wireless
is minimized. One thing that should be kept in mind is that most
people want their devices to be always on and reachable, but yet
they might actually use them for something only a very small
fraction of the time. Even a tiny amount of traffic during the
inactive period may thus result in a relatively large impact
when you compare it to actual useful traffic. This in turn
translates to battery lifetimes and cost for the users.
--Jari
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
