Suspend vs Network Traffic - blockers

[Javier Cardona]

David, John,

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:07 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:44 -0700, Javier Cardona wrote:
>>
>> The two problems I had with the current wol-signature implementation
>> were usability¹ and the inability to configure one ARP + one IPv6
>> Neighbor Solicitation trigger on *each* the msh and the eth interface.
>
> Doesn't neighbour solicitation happen as multicast, so you only need the
> wake-on-multicast for that?

My assumption, based on observing OLPC traffic patterns, was that we
did not want to wake up on all the multicast traffic that the xo was
listening for.
But keep reading...

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:17 PM, John Gilmore <gnu at toad.com> wrote:
> We *do* want to wake on all multicast traffic that the kernel or user
> programs are listening for.
>
> (If every laptop is sending too much multicast traffic all the time,
> such that we could never suspend for more than a few seconds, then
> we'll need to fix that -- at the senders, by not sending it; not by
> making the recipients ignore it!)

I believe that we've been trying to reduce multicast traffic from
activities for a while now without success.
So until this happens we can use the wow-signature method to further
restrict which muticast traffic should be allowed to wake up the host.

But if the excess of multicast traffic problem has been resolved, then
yes, we don't need a specific trigger to wake up on Neighbor
Solicitation messages.  Plain multicast wakeup will just work.

Cheers,

Javier

-- 
Javier Cardona
cozybit Inc.