Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-xie-network-happyeyeballs-00.txt

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 26 September 2018 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D382E130E27; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ETeZtZoRiR8; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x241.google.com (mail-oi1-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EB3E130E13; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x241.google.com with SMTP id n1-v6so3562131oic.4; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GIz/MDxKo158gydr1bGBShQWj+ImLkEvD1bYEcJxt6U=; b=l8Kj758J4UHGQJZ74no/kSuEraIOF9GkM0HpUMacpyl7ubEhqvZam9k1lfdXVClJn5 6dqdhj6cQs2MupiUHK+nvhz+zCtb4uDpi+nyqbQ1SJiuHhystJ7ieRrEVZ9lXC9WT6e9 xEz+62Z8s1s+iCxwHFgSWSgnEkgfXiPkdvP7z5wrT6Z0mZ63D2zSTB7g3fdH8VjxIEbH qisEPVpqgsSlOaSixkhLAjnRGPljmXUZiwgaM+KDLrQM+Mf7e4uyHqzn4Q/t7PZVpT8u oDC5UQ9WvE1wsIyD6EE6f7IAVya5bI2ncoN1Mngo5pDaJ0PmNQTuYHjqn0R3rtdXV5Eh yByA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GIz/MDxKo158gydr1bGBShQWj+ImLkEvD1bYEcJxt6U=; b=PGi2VQzRxdWJcK4cMj6gmEndc8hXQzxLkZ7aCyHH32Q+TcjsC92SX/rPIjpGlzHeGa i3Z2MKSdsuZnXWgygYHONLVKu/YSITKzWhp5JwJYXIqmBe04xDGGJGqkkc5tZMSO5dj7 zeSXwchRH0jJ1m2x/Mx78SqKexujKOBj7YMRjPa1Fo1Wp3Wv7fzkgrkT0rW6AwlKhX5U Dr5ngwZFdE4vhE5ZTNHNSXBTNXsXl/llZTwM03SlV8mpewKJ/QCknQWXPvkKhoUEkaxh f21mQ7zXtSj0yMjyQa9Rxh7cnVHXXwXdA9ZZuA2y57o0f8zmOP3j8rh80ADEP0K9hKve 9Aeg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfog2BKU0bJs3l07iAz+MAcUY2Nd0Y3dauBf8RC+pbK34SP4NIwBg 3DKpt74tLOL07Sfnbg3yCdVqBt5/6+nIbGdE8G8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV628KRz8Gp15YHzrlNpgJb1a6/eGt/fWHp9ZJMFH6svYFkskqStpcdQfmuQLPdTYlBJakTgkMJRT4/MNPHuObJw=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:e805:: with SMTP id f5-v6mr940324oih.38.1537945553309; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153751052820.5339.10049404273601155140.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAAObRXLWpXVbPyyxuzJH8osi+R1rdV8N8=Woqvq3UR9nk8kDaA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd4jjeZy9Stp-v6O0VOyvEJiE9vW1BLuy-wzqPGvDagoQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAObRX+6ktcD8i_aToKbX7UJoSPT0NMPV0xKqT8-k+7_d0R5Nw@mail.gmail.com> <20180925072015.GV11393@Space.Net> <CAAObRXKhS++5_cmvjTx3LY+ti6NbGj1NvtL6XeQGOvYuJKw0uw@mail.gmail.com> <3BDC24C2-6D51-4FF1-8A48-CAD4F8CEBF9C@employees.org> <CAAObRXJd3Ym_JezijzFVGGUj6hnkLd78dA-B_oug1gZ_-kbeAw@mail.gmail.com> <2FEEAF29-E213-4DA3-8ECA-4EF51E170B50@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <2FEEAF29-E213-4DA3-8ECA-4EF51E170B50@employees.org>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 17:05:27 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2xrkV+qaue+CEBb0nq+3ocxsPhQLpQadkP+QPeHx9sMSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: songlinjian@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006397220576c0dae0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-pOUF-fSb8XA7nLBYOSybnV4sUg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-xie-network-happyeyeballs-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:05:56 -0000

On Wed., 26 Sep. 2018, 16:10 Ole Troan, <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> Davey,
>
> If we’re discussing host based versus network based happy eyeballs, would
> it be naive to think that the network based HE would interfere with the
> client’s HE?
>
> A router knows very little about end to end properties of a connection. It
> could of course do those measurements by looking deeply into packets, but
> it would still be restricted to it’s own topological location. Compare that
> with the data available to an MP-TCP host stack.
>
> And note I think HE can’t just be between v4 and v6, but between all the
> candidate connections between source and destination.
>

Yes, multipathing (+ encryption) has a lot of impacts on what is possible
to do and commonly done on the network today. A lot of those activities
would have to be shifted to the host.

Start at slide 63 -

http://www.users.on.net/~markachy/The_Rapid_Rise_of_the_MMHH.pdf

I can't seem to find it now, however I think Fred Baker wrote a draft a
number of years ago that observed that multi-addressing on a single
interface is also a form of multi-homing, meaning that it isn't a
requirement for a "multi-homed" host to have multiple interfaces attached
to multiple and different networks. That means most IPv4 hosts, and all
IPv6 hosts, by design, are potential multi-homed hosts.

Regards,
Mark.


> Cheers,
> Ole
>
> On 26 Sep 2018, at 04:49, Davey Song <songlinjian@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But in the general case the network cannot.
>> Think host multi-homing.
>>
>
> Yes or no.
>
> Generally speaking the races of IPv6 and IPv4 connections on both network
> and client are going to be suffered by netowrk dynamics, including
> Multi-homing,  route flaps, roaming, or other network falilures. Extremely,
> a client can get a better IPv6 connection in one second (when IPv6 win the
> race), and lose it in next second. In such case, more sophisticated
> measurement should be done(on client or network) , for a longer period, on
> statistics of RTT and Failure rate, or combinations of them. But in IMHO,
> the assumption of HE is relatively stable network for short exchange
> connections. The dynamics exits but relatively rare or no notable impact on
> HE. So I see no such discussion in RFC8035.
>
> Davey
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>