IETF's Tips For Network Admins On How To Avoid Draining Smartphone Batteries (softpedia.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IETF's Tips For Network Admins On How To Avoid Draining Smartphone Batteries (softpedia.com)

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @05:10AM from the keep-battery-in-charger-at-home dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Two engineers from Cisco and Google have raised the problem of IPv6 networks that drain smartphone battery life and issued a series of tips for other network admins on why and how to properly configure their networks. The problem is because of Router Advertisements (RAs). These are periodic messages sent by the router to all network clients telling them its IPv6 address, at which it can be reached. Apparently some networks are sending these as often as every 3 seconds, while the engineers say the proper interval should be 7 per hour. Hence the reason why your battery life is often drained even if your phone is in sleep mode, but connected to a local network.

65 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

IPv6 is such a disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 05:17 · Score: 1

Have you heard of anything, other than more addresses so you can be sloppy with allocations, positive about it? I haven't.
1. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by Maritz · 2016-02-16 05:27 · Score: 2
  
  I've heard that it is quicker for routers to do lookups on routing tables. I believe it might also be better for summarisation. I do find it weird that the RA stuff is so chatty though.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
2. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it makes handoffs between APs a lot easier. Not a big deal, unless you've got clients travelling around the world, connecting through different services at different times in different ways. Works beautifully for smart phones and business travelers.
3. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  RA is only chatty if you mis-configure it. You can also set the IPv4 DHCP timeout to 5 seconds and complain about how chatty DHCP is.
4. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by amorsen · 2016-02-16 05:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  An IPv6 network is much easier to set up properly. Check out the HomeNet stuff, where you just chuck a bunch of routers together more or less randomly, with connectivity from cable and DSL and 4G, plus a bunch of wifi routers, and it all Just Works. IPv4 in the same scenario will require a lot of hand-fiddling and being strict about topology.
  No worrying about subnetting, setting up DHCP, making sure that there's precisely one DHCP server per network and all that.
  Some of it is still under development, like the daisy-chained routers more than one deep, but it will get there.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
5. Re: IPv6 is such a disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  My internet connection with Comcast is over three times faste with 6 as compared to 4. Everyone needs to upgrade.
6. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 05:48 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The Bad:
  -They did away with private addressing (site-local) "because it breaks the openness of the internet and firewalls". Tell that one to someone who's seen hackers use a Java-based PS2 Video broadcasting software to send files across the internet. Lets automatically use public addresses on air-gapped networks.
  -The standard has changed so many times in the last 10 years nobody can comprehend it; every book has a different set of material on it, every programmer has set their infrastructure up differently.
  -They did away with IPV4's simplistic subnetting and supernetting, and introduced EUI-64 addressing which can track devices as they move from network to network. Marketing companies like Google and Microsoft were helping to write the standard.
  -Very Few large deployments.
  The Good:
  -Better for networks with large numbers of hosts: Usually you don't make a broadcast domain any larger than a /22 block (1024 addresses). IPv6 breaks that mold.
  -Great for multicast\anycast traffic.
  -Great for creating complex and elegant networks when combined with VLAN's; 802.1x plus NAC plus EUI64 plus asset tagging has the promise to be really effective for physical port security in said large companies.
7. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by sims+2 · 2016-02-16 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still waiting for verizon wireless to start giving out routable ipv6 addresses. The At&t dsl line at work has had a valid ipv6 address for the last 3 years.
  On a verizon 6620l I am assigned a ipv6 address that is unreachable.
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
8. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by codealot · 2016-02-16 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely. It was shockingly easy to setup on my home network. Once I configured OpenWRT with an IPv6 tunnel, and initialized ip6tables, autoconfiguration kicked in, all the devices on my home network, including mobile devices, configured IPv6 on their own and everything just worked.
  The article seems to be about misconfigured routers, unrelated to any problems with IPv6 itself.
  I'd like to start running IPv6 everywhere. My darned ISP isn't provide it natively, yet, and we don't have it on our work network. As far as I can tell nothing stands in the way of deploying IPv6 except laziness and incompetence.
9. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by Zarhan · 2016-02-16 06:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  -They did away with private addressing (site-local) "because it breaks the openness of the internet and firewalls". Tell that one to someone who's seen hackers use a Java-based PS2 Video broadcasting software to send files across the internet. Lets automatically use public addresses on air-gapped networks.
  No they didn't.
  See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf... - Site-local was the original spec and that's deprecated since it doesn't allow for easily merging of two existing private networks. ULA fixes that. So damn right you can have private networks.
  The standard has changed so many times in the last 10 years nobody can comprehend it; every book has a different set of material on it, every programmer has set their infrastructure up differently.
  Oh please. Only things that have really fundamentally changed are the IPv4IPv6 transition mechanism. Now that NAT64 and DNS64 are in use, you can pretty much work with an IPv6-only network (ironically, a couple years ago everything else, including gaming, worked via a NAT64, except for Skype, which is supposed to go through anything)
  They did away with IPV4's simplistic subnetting and supernetting, and introduced EUI-64 addressing which can track devices as they move from network to network. Marketing companies like Google and Microsoft were helping to write the standard.
  Oh please, even Windows uses privacy extensions for IPv6. No one forces you to use EUI-64.
  Very Few large deployments.
  Tell that to the Chinese. They have *huge* networks, IPv6 only.
10. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  That's not the reason for more addresses, and makes me suspect that you're a crazy person.
11. Re: IPv6 is such a disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  That is exactly why. Corporations are lazy and only hire morons so of course they want a system that doesn't requiring thinking or planning.
12. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by Martin+Blank · 2016-02-16 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  They did away with private addressing (site-local) "because it breaks the openness of the internet and firewalls". Tell that one to someone who's seen hackers use a Java-based PS2 Video broadcasting software to send files across the internet. Lets automatically use public addresses on air-gapped networks.
  RFC 1918 addresses were a kludgy solution to problematic address assignment early on, and a recognition that the IPv4 address space was too finite for even the conservative growth forecasts of the time. Its use as a security feature has created a long-running debate about whether it really is a security feature (it's not, though it has some beneficial side effects). Even with that ugly history, IPv6 does include private addressing options in the form of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (RFC 4193), and are within the address space fc00::/7, though only fd00::/8 is really designed for internal networking use at this point. Use of Unique Local Addressing is discouraged for networks connected to the Internet in favor of real firewalls.
  
  The standard has changed so many times in the last 10 years nobody can comprehend it; every book has a different set of material on it, every programmer has set their infrastructure up differently.
  This is a running problem, but things have stabilized over the last few years as larger implementations have been rolled out, which have resulted in significant synchronizations between different groups. Documentation still requires a lot of work, and there's some horrifically bad stuff out there from more than a decade ago, but it's getting better.
  
  They did away with IPV4's simplistic subnetting and supernetting, and introduced EUI-64 addressing which can track devices as they move from network to network. Marketing companies like Google and Microsoft were helping to write the standard.
  EUI-64 hasn't been the default method of assigning the addresses for several years now, with privacy extensions (RFC 4941) taking precedence. At least since Windows 7 (and maybe Vista), Windows has used randomly generated temporary addresses that are regenerated regularly. Once an address is no longer needed (no existing connections, no listeners, etc.), it's dropped completely. A computer may have several IPv6 addresses at one time for this reason: my primary Windows system currently has eight addresses, six of them deprecated, and none an EUI-64 address. EUI-64 addressing can be enabled, but it's not the default.
  Apple also generates temporary addresses, though it also uses an EUI-64 address. However, the temporary address is the preferred one, and the one that's used for initiating outbound connections. Same thing happens with Linux, at least with Debian 8, and I believe iOS and Android do the same thing. (My iPhone running v9.2 does, anyway.)
  
  Very Few large deployments.
  Slowly changing. Comcast has one of the biggest IPv6 rollouts in place, and AT&T also has it widespread. Google claims that 10% of its global traffic and 23% of US traffic comes from native IPv6 sources. There's still plenty of room to grow, but it won't be too much longer until we're at a tipping point.
  The Good:
  
  Better for networks with large numbers of hosts: Usually you don't make a broadcast domain any larger than a /22 block (1024 addresses). IPv6 breaks that mold.
  Technically, there are no broadcast domains in IPv6, as broadcast was removed in favor of multicast. However, you're right about larger networks being possible. Whether this is a good thing depends greatly on the circumstances. It might be a good idea to set up a giant mesh network across a campus sharing the same giant subnet and allowing many thousands of devices within that subnet, but smaller subnets may still have their uses in tighter confinements (though this may increase the odds
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
13. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by Tim+the+Gecko · 2016-02-16 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  The Bad: -They did away with IPV4's simplistic subnetting and supernetting
  "Simplistic" means "excessively simple", which hardly seems to describe subnetting in IPv4 - should you go for a /27, or a /26, or a /25? IPv6 is simpler, as you don't have to worry about running out of LAN addresses.
  
  -Very Few large deployments.
  Comcast had 1Tb/sec 18 months ago
14. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by skids · 2016-02-16 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Except that no enterprise network engineer in their right mind will use the stateless autoconfig you refer to, because it cannot be secured.
  One joker sending his own RAs and you're whole network is p0wned, no spoof protection beyond what your vendor implements in their equipment,
  which, just like IPV4, has to be configured. Not that IPv6 is a bad thing, and enterprise gear is now shipping that has the same
  level of first-hop security features we've come to expect from IPv4 feature sets. Someday maybe there will be enough space between other projects
  to implement it on my net.
  As to the OP, compared to what clients do, RAs are the least of your problems -- first job of a wifi engineer that cares about not
  draining batteries is to start to turn off AP propagation of all broadcast and multicast traffic. Whatever you can get away with without users
  complaining, turn it off before they start to rely on some service that uses it. Then hope to hell your WiFi vendor has a solution
  for selectively enabling PAN/multicast groups before the requests to use AppleTVs in meeting rooms get to a PHB.
  This from TFA mystifies me: "an ancient practice from the older days of the Internet, where connectivity uptime was a must"
  These guys must think everyone uses only iPads and never games. (Not that they are wrong about tuning down RAs.)
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
15. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by unixisc · 2016-02-16 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like they got rid of the idea of a hierarchical routing scheme, which could have helped in this, due to the desire of having Provide Independent IPs
  As for IPv6, aside from the addresses, there are a lot of things it brings - like eliminating the necessity of having NAT in cases where having it is a disruptor - like where end to end connectivity is needed. Now, there were a lot of howls about how NAT is good and actually needed in some cases, such as load balancing, and for that, IETF did insert Prefix Address Translation, so that there is only one NAT standard in IPv6, unlike at least 3 in IPv4.
16. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by unixisc · 2016-02-16 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  But Access Points are typically plugged in, and are not the devices sensitive to battery life. Those are the iPhones, iPads, Galaxies, and so on. THOSE devices ought to be configured (by default) to only scan for new RAs IF AND WHEN they lose connection w/ their original gateway.
  Looks like the IETF is looking at the wrong place to conserve battery life
17. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by unixisc · 2016-02-16 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  IPv4's subnetting and supernetting is ANYTHING BUT SIMPLISTIC. Subnet masks, calculating the number of nodes, broadcast addresses, ugh!!!
18. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by unixisc · 2016-02-16 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  Not just that, but the subnet masks just make things more complicated, and inverting them to produce supernet masks is just bizarre. In IPv6, every subnet is 2^64 (excessive, IMO, but that's another story) - which is ONE SIZE FITS ALL
19. Re: IPv6 is such a disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 14:20 · Score: 0
  
  Looks like you haven't read the RFC!
20. Re: IPv6 is such a disaster by unixisc · 2016-02-16 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  Which RFC is this?
21. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by klapaucjusz · 2016-02-17 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  An IPv6 network is much easier to set up properly. Check out the HomeNet stuff, where you just chuck a bunch of routers together more or less randomly, with connectivity from cable and DSL and 4G, plus a bunch of wifi routers, and it all Just Works.
  The IETF Homenet Working Group
  Non-official Homenet HOWTO
22. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by klapaucjusz · 2016-02-17 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  first job of a wifi engineer that cares about not draining batteries is to start to turn off AP propagation of all broadcast and multicast traffic.
  Unlike IPv4, Ipv6 doesn't work at all if multicast is filtered -- things like stateless autoconfiguration, DHCPv6 and even neighbour discovery run over multicast.
23. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by klapaucjusz · 2016-02-17 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  They did away with private addressing (site-local) "because it breaks the openness of the internet and firewalls"
  They did away with site-local addresses because they couldn't agree on the definition of a site (is your home network a site, or is it part of your ISP's network?). They've been replaced with ULAs, which are easier to understand, simpler to administer and simpler to program with.
  
  The standard has changed so many times in the last 10 years
  A few unused features have been removed (v4-compatible addressing, site-local addressing, partial support for MTUs below 1280), but the specification has been mostly stable for a good 15 years.
  
  They did away with IPV4's simplistic subnetting and supernetting,
  No, subnetting is still there. The only difference is that all leaf networks are supposed to have the same size, which is supposed to make administration easier.
  
  introduced EUI-64 addressing
  Yeah, that was a stupid idea. It's been replaced by RFC 7217 (stable private addresses).
  
  Very Few large deployments.
  Google? Facebook? Comcast?
24. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by skids · 2016-02-17 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  First, stateless configuration you just kill off with extreme prejudice.
  Second, broadcast is indeed essential for almost every protocol that runs over ethernet (because ARP)
  but that doesn't stop us from turning off everything but the bare essentials. Almost all enterprise gear knows
  how to let ARP (or ND) and DHCP through while blocking everything else. The better gear even allows you to let
  users hear the broadcast from other devices which that user owns, but does not forward them to any other
  clients (and you can build groups of users that can hear certain multicast servers as well, and restrict the
  advertisement to APs that both have one of those clients, and are within a reasonable physical distance of
  an asset (Usually no reason anyone should be logging into the meeting-room video-conferencing unit from
  the cafeteria.)
  While almost nobody has closed hole 196, you can also convert all broadcast which you DO allow back out
  of APs to unicast on the RF side, so at least mulitcast used in that attack sticks out like a sore thumb, and
  in fact this works very well, since the odds of two devices actually being on the same AP to benefit from
  the "efficiency" of multicast is actually rather small, and getting smaller the denser we make the cells. So
  you generally end up sending one packet per mc packet per client anyway.
  In addition, some people also just have the gateway proxy-arp everything so the clients never see another
  client's MAC address.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
25. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by klapaucjusz · 2016-02-17 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  First, stateless configuration you just kill off with extreme prejudice.
  That's up to you, of course, but you still need RAs -- DHCPv6 doesn't distribute a default route, it relies on RAs for that.
  
  Second, broadcast is indeed essential for almost every protocol that runs over ethernet (because ARP) but that doesn't stop us from turning off everything but the bare essentials. Almost all enterprise gear knows how to let ARP (or ND) and DHCP through while blocking everything else.
  So you kill DNS-SD over mDNS (Apple's Bonjour)? No printer discovery, no discovery of streaming media servers, no IPTV?
  
  you can also convert all broadcast which you DO allow back out of APs to unicast on the RF side
  That's actually a good idea, since multicast over WiFi is horribly inefficient.
26. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by Agripa · 2016-02-17 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  I am still waiting for AT&T U-Verse to stop blocking IPv6 tunneling over IPv4. They did not used to but when they started selling "upgrades" for IPv6 support, they also started blocking native tunneling.
27. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by sims+2 · 2016-02-17 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Upgrades? The modem at work has native ipv6 its not an added feature.
  But just to note it is a business line $45/mo 12/1mbps It may have different features than a residential line. We also own the modem which is unheard of on a residential line.
  Hmm I haven't checked if I can still do tunnels over ipv4 I don't see why I wouldn't be able to.
  Did they give you a nat ipv4 address instead of a public ipv4?
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
28. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by Agripa · 2016-02-18 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Upgrades? The modem at work has native ipv6 its not an added feature.
  Right about they time AT&T started blocking it, they also started advertising IPv6 availability if you payed to upgrade your modem.
  
  But just to note it is a business line $45/mo 12/1mbps It may have different features than a residential line. We also own the modem which is unheard of on a residential line.
  This is on a consumer AT&T U-Verse line.
  
  Hmm I haven't checked if I can still do tunnels over ipv4 I don't see why I wouldn't be able to.
  Did they give you a nat ipv4 address instead of a public ipv4?
  AT&T blocks incoming protocol 41.
  Several years ago everything worked like it should and you could use protocol 41 to tunnel IPv6 over IPv4 to either a custom tunnel endpoint or to the multicast endpoint. Then AT&T blocked it at their border routers so you could only use the multicast endpoint inside of AT&T's network. Then they blocked incoming protocol 41 at the modem so even that did not work.
  I filed a net neutrality complaint with the FCC with no positive results. My conclusion is that as far as the FCC is concerned, blocking by protocol is not a network neutrality violation.
29. Re:IPv6 is such a disaster by skids · 2016-03-01 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  So you kill DNS-SD over mDNS (Apple's Bonjour)? No printer discovery, no discovery of streaming media servers, no IPTV?
  Yeah pretty much stomp the crap out of any protocol that is built on the erroneous premise that network segmentation has any bearing on the borders of a LAN/PAN anymore, and then use vendor solutions to filter it and distribute it to specific hosts, both in and outside the IP broadcast domain (the latter part can only be done with protocols that don't have a ban on using servers outside their subnet, so no MS media players.)
  Though, demand has not been high enough for my boss to elevate setting that up on my TODO list yet. So right now only devices logged in under the same username can see each other (setup of that was a just a button push.)
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
Short DHCP lease by DigiShaman · 2016-02-16 05:19 · Score: 1

My all time favorite is when AT&T thought it was a good idea to make public IP DHCP lease expiration every 10 seconds or so. Effectively causing some routers to drop the WAN link and thus terminating any and all file transfers.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
1. Re: Short DHCP lease by ZorinLynx · 2016-02-16 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  I remember this on my Bellsouth/AT&T DSL line years ago. It made my system log mostly dhcp renewals. They never did fix it either; dealt with it until I moved to cable.
  Comcast may suck in other ways but at least their lease times are several days.
2. Re:Short DHCP lease by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Why would a router drop link? With a 10-second expiration, the router should have attempted a DHCP renewal at 5 seconds and had plenty of time to receive a lease renewal. Unless the DHCP server or network was so congested as to introduce more than 5 seconds delay causing the lease to fully expire.
  But yes, 10 seconds is ridiculous.
3. Re: Short DHCP lease by sims+2 · 2016-02-16 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  At&t Arris nvg510 has a dhcp time of 24 hours, 10 minutes if you enable ip passthrough. ADSL2+
  Maybe someday our local cable company will be brave enough to admit they don't have speeds as good as dsl on the flyers they send out.
  At&t is selling 12mbps while suddenlink is selling 8mbps.
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
4. Re: Short DHCP lease by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-02-16 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  stock firmware on consumer routers has been lowest-bidder crap since the product space began. The *WRT projects, some of Apple's gear, and probably Google's new device would be the exceptions.
  I found a 54G the other day at a client site that had be running a DD build from 2009 without missing a beat since it was installed. Makes you feel bad for the hardware engineers who work on these things. We might assume the Belkin/Buffalo/ASUS folks who went open source had hardware engineers who finally ousted their psycho software managers.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
5. Re: Short DHCP lease by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  You've apparently never heard of Mikrotik or Ubiquiti
6. Re: Short DHCP lease by afidel · 2016-02-16 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Unless there's more than one suddenlink their site says they offer 50/5, 100/10, 200/20 and 1000/50 tiers (the gigabit is going to be problematic IMHO as many protocols are going to need more than 5% return bandwidth to work well).
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Hmm... home routers? by the_skywise · 2016-02-16 05:41 · Score: 1

I wonder how bad this is on home routers. I haven't seen this problem on my iPhone or Droid but my iPad, only a year old, has recently started draining its battery pretty quickly which I think I can relate to turning on IPv6 at home...
(Or maybe it's just a bad iDevice... :) )
The Way by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 06:11 · Score: 0

There's only one way to avoid draining your smartphone battery: don't charge it to begin with.
Smartphones are for old people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 06:23 · Score: 0

Nobody in their right mind walks around with a smart phone these days.
They're even bigger than the phone I carried 10 years ago. What a joke.
1. Re:Smartphones are for old people by the_skywise · 2016-02-16 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah.. laugh now... just wait til your implant gives you diabeetus because it continuously requires more glucose to keep refreshing its IPv6 connection!
  (Besides, old people need the bigger screens, I'm surprised there's not a jitterbug iPhone yet)
2. Re:Smartphones are for old people by unixisc · 2016-02-16 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  So what do millennials use? I've hardly seen anyone w/o an iPhone or Galaxy
Sleeping While Connected? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 06:25 · Score: 0

Since when do cell phones stay connected to networks when asleep? I think I've missed the redefinition of 'sleep' to 'blanked screen'.
1. Re:Sleeping While Connected? by PPH · 2016-02-16 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Since the NSA told all phone manufacturers to keep track of users at all times.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:Sleeping While Connected? by amRadioHed · 2016-02-16 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, why would someone's communication device need to be reachable on a network? It's puzzling.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
This. IPv6 unique local = better private addresses by raymorris · 2016-02-16 06:39 · Score: 2

Exactly. Unique local addresses in IPv6 are not globally routable, just like private addresses in IPv4. They can be used just like IPv4 private addresses, if you want to. Unique local is all addressed starting with FD:.
The IPv6 version is better, though, because each local network is likely to use different IPs, so you can choose to locally route them. Here are a couple of examples of why that's good. Suppose you have a small office in College Station, where someone set up a typical SOHO network with unique local addresses. Also, your headquarters office in Dallas has it's network with unique local. Just like IPv4, on the internet can't reach either network. Unlike IPv4, the two offices probably use -different- IP addresses, and you can decide to have your VPN router route between them, forming a company-wide network.
Similarly, suppose that ABC LLC buys XYZ Corp. With IPv4, integrating the networks in a pain - both companies probably have machines with the same IP addresses, so you have to change the IPs on all of equipment used by XYZ. With IPv6, they are unlikely to match, so you can easily merge the two networks by routing between the two sets of "private" IPs (unique local IPs).
Meanwhile at Samsung by B2382F29 · 2016-02-16 06:43 · Score: 1

Newer Samsung phones are DROPPING any IPv6 packet (not just RAs) as soon as the screen is off. (this is in the WiFi firmware so even 3rd party roms like CyanogenMod are affected).
So anything that is connected via IPv6 will be disconnected.
See this thread (the title is about ICMPv6 but later it clarifies that newer phones drop ALL IPv6 traffic): http://developer.samsung.com/forum/board/thread/view.do?boardName=General&messageId=239890
Even if they do that to save battery, there are better ways to do this and it should be configurable.
Please help and raise a stink with Samsung over this!

--
Move Sig. For great justice.
Router Advertisements. by jimbob6 · 2016-02-16 07:09 · Score: 1

When a device comes into a cell it sends out a router solicitation and the tower sends out a router advertisement in response, regardless of the RA interval. With so many devices coming in and out of the cells all the time it wouldn't surprise me if the network was giving out a RA's every 3 seconds. Most routers are configured to give out a RA every 200 seconds by default. I can't imagine an administrator configuring the interval to be every 3 seconds.
1. Re: Router Advertisements. by TekPolitik · 2016-02-16 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Some networks have been intentionally configured to send out RAs every 3 seconds because Samsung devices drop all IPv6 when the screen is off. This causes them to lose all network access (even IPv4) when the screen comes back on, until the next RA. Samsung broke it, they need to fix it.
  It would of course be better if solicited RAs were not sent as broadcasts.
Basic Netowrk engineering 101 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 07:46 · Score: 0

You should be dropping all network management packets, Route advert, Spanning tree, etc at the Wifi port, unless you have an edge case to actually use them. Wifi is typically connecting clients, clients don't need routing information or STP.
any engineer work his/her salt is already doing this, but glad to see the IETF keeping pace i guess.
1. Re:Basic Netowrk engineering 101 by swalve · 2016-02-16 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Learn what ipv6 router advertisements are.
How to get more battery life by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-02-16 07:55 · Score: 1

Apparently some networks are sending these as often as every 3 seconds, while the engineers say the proper interval should be 7 per hour.
Okay so if everybody fixes this problem everywhere we're going to get 171.42 days of battery life instead of only one?
Samsung Developers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 11:39 · Score: 0

Hello,

Blocking packets of IPv6 when screen is off is intended because battery runs down rapidly due to increasing standby power.
End-users can connect to networks continually by IPv4.

Best Regards,
Samsung Developers
Why are NETWORK ADMINS responsible? by unixisc · 2016-02-16 13:22 · Score: 1

Precisely! But where in the protocol can one set the frequency of RAs, so that battery life ain't needlessly drained?
But here's the thing. Even if a router advertizes every few seconds, why does a DEVICE have to keep scanning? It just needs to scan when it loses the signal to a particular router, and needs a new IP address. So if I am w/ my iPhone at home, the device shouldn't have to scan at all. If I'm at an airport going from check-in to the terminal where my flight will take off, the device would scan, but the frequency of THAT can or should be set on the device itself.
Routers are not power sensitive - they are usually stationary and always plugged in, so them issuing RAs every few seconds should not be an issue. The portable devices that are battery sensitive should be more discerning, and only scan for WiFi signals when they lose contact w/ a particular IP/MAC address. Network admins ain't the ones who are draining smartphone batteries
1. Re: Why are NETWORK ADMINS responsible? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 14:16 · Score: 0
  
  Defaults are RAs once every 3 to 10 minutes. The problem is partly caused by people playing with settings they don't properly understand, and just assuming lower is better.
  If you don't understand what you're changing, leave it alone!
  (I'm one of the contributors to that RFC)
2. Re: Why are NETWORK ADMINS responsible? by unixisc · 2016-02-16 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  There are 2 things here - the routers and the devices.
  For the routers, since in IPv6, addresses are proactively distributed, as opposed to requested by the device (as was the case in IPv4), RAs SHOULD be frequent, particularly in a wireless environment. Like, say, at an airport, if you have an AP at one of the terminals, where people keep coming and going, RAs should happen frequently, providing addresses to the passengers in the vicinity. If they were to happen rarely, then the passengers who want to check their mail w/o using their data plan, while they're waiting to board their flight, would be SOL.
  But from the DEVICE POV, the issue is different. THEIR priority needs to be conserving battery life. One way to do this - when the iPhone is in sleep mode and in one's pocket, DON'T scan for packets. WiFi should be off as well, so that it doesn't get the address from an AP in terminal 11 that its owner spends 2 seconds at while proceeding to terminal 5.
  The routers are doing what they should. If someone was sitting at terminal 11 w/ a laptop plugged in, it can take all the RAs it wants. It's the device's settings that should tell the device NOT to scan for WiFi signals while in battery mode, unless specifically required i.e. someone wants to watch a furry youtube video while waiting in line to turn in the boarding pass
3. Re: Why are NETWORK ADMINS responsible? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 00:18 · Score: 0
  
  Not correct. The device can ask for a router advertisement actively. The router will then reply. The default broadcasts every 10 minutes are to keep nodes up to date.
  The problem is that frequent broadcasts require wakeups of the wlan radio, which of course increases power consumption. Its the same when you have way too many arp requests, the batteries will also drain fast.
Verizon tops AT&T in IPv6 by unixisc · 2016-02-16 13:29 · Score: 1

I am on Verizon Wireless, and I have a routable IPv6 address. Two years ago, I had an AT&T Wireless phone from work, and it failed the IPv6 test, while my own Verizon one passed
1. Re:Verizon tops AT&T in IPv6 by sims+2 · 2016-02-16 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing if you for example setup a ftp server on port 21 bound to your ipv6 address can you reach it from another connection with a ipv6 address? I can reach the internet with my ipv6 address it's just the internet doesn't seem to be able to reach me.
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
2. Re:Verizon tops AT&T in IPv6 by dkman · 2016-02-18 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  The problem may be that Verizon was blocking ports
  Yes, ISPs try to artificially limit what you can do by making you jump through hoops.
  
  --
  I refuse to sign
The only place I've seen EUI64 used... by unixisc · 2016-02-16 13:34 · Score: 1

... is in PC-BSD for the LINK-LOCAL addresses - the FE80::/10. That enables layer 3 communications within a network.
1. Re:The only place I've seen EUI64 used... by Martin+Blank · 2016-02-17 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  It was common early on until people (rightfully) started getting concerned about the possibility of device tracking, and it's probably still used in some devices. By the time it started getting implemented at any real scale, privacy extensions became the norm.
  The concept has been extended to other areas, too. Apple added it to iOS MAC addressing for hotspot detection (though the real MAC address is used for the actual connection), and the concept has been proposed for IEEE adoption in the 802.11 spec except that each connection would get a random MAC address, too. The concern is exactly the same: the ease of tracking people through unique identifiers they carry with them wherever they go.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
IPv4 can't do it anymore.... by unixisc · 2016-02-16 13:39 · Score: 1

No amount of thinking or planning will get around the fact that IPv4 CAN'T provide enough addresses for all the devices and applications that need IP addresses
Is this the by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-16 14:16 · Score: 0

ICMPv6 router advertisement I see every three seconds in wireshark?
Better solution found! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 09:51 · Score: 0

Disable IPv6. Solves all of your networking stability and reliability problems.