5 ms·
I am not convinced about the polling argument to save battery life. Yes, IPv6 could do that, but so can IPv4. Google have already demonstrated how to detect an
by rlpb 14y ago
I am not convinced about the polling argument to save battery life.
Yes, IPv6 could do that, but so can IPv4. Google have already demonstrated how to detect and adapt to the NAT device's timeout. Devices can just as easily hold a TCP connection open with minimal keepalives. All that is needed is for carrier NAT devices to increase their timeouts, and Android will detect this and start using less frequent keepalive intervals. 30 seconds (as from the article) can become 30 minutes. I'm sure the other smartphone OSes can either do the same thing or already do.
No IPv6 is needed. As much as I'd like to see IPv6 adopted, specious claims do not help.
- makomk 14y agoIf carrier NAT devices increase their timeouts, they're going to have to keep more stale connection information in memory, which means they'll need more memory to handle the same number of users, which will cost carriers money. They're not affected by their users getting less battery life because most customers won't realise it's the carrier's fault, so why should they change anything?
- rlpb 14y agoCompared to the costs to carriers in implementing IPv6? That's nothing. I'm not convinced there will be that many extra stale connections, either. Do a significant number of phones switch IPs so often that there will really be a problem, or do they tend to get the same ones back?