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

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Wed, 26 September 2018 05:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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 94519126BED for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
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 UXYugJrvsYYu for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x143.google.com (mail-lf1-x143.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::143]) (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 A0165130E02 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x143.google.com with SMTP id m80-v6so11531299lfi.12 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HYKHXevy9GU9/1KWRIc2KtFdZE6SeMChZtPpuP2GhaU=; b=GjGO4WHiRgEDVlRTIUfFgpBCCQUuCHKlnNeOYmJjMD+IRUSH4pU4eB4fMyliLreCxt 00y4I8/v4OOmVDteRt0tIG9oBQ6PywrWyXhf22M03jm+LpbRNUDJjwV9hmHN+CRUjLIu n0uyRcamjA9hEaFNsEHwDPc2SWT09zgKX6vu0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HYKHXevy9GU9/1KWRIc2KtFdZE6SeMChZtPpuP2GhaU=; b=b6CRPW6fxQiCYat4lFO03MgUyILFhJrdAAw7TEj3huPnLk0ywX+gruOLSFaA3CcMyR HXYH+J2PqP/Oay+DbqMV6DvlH0SxMTvyjc2DgFQQnw3vtb/DJebyra9fCSGQaA3mPeWp mD8IM8hM1MMQKyKzovmbPfWeIIGDe39w2cPsTt0pQsk7fUQCtt2goIO/Fyoeelc2fHN0 QC2oQ/kHPbZlePgXqDm1kWSizKLPBPkxsaO/jjxoA3cG3VeX65FUcz+QhzqW02xYVA6R IQ/danCzwZSCRc4pCTEzbqevXZNoAAr7eqWKejFVNEqydLdFD1PsSe6+MHjq1npsMeVj lPeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohg1rMncY+nEBCp1SYeEZuRXpf/vY8iQrnWIUwCv6qj4O1A4yKH innq2/rgOnG0YFyXKbtOP3bNvmXoLqbTq/pgMI1ToY9tEqnOTA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62uCPyLkf7wO+OfuSlJ+9vHl/tLQs2i110dWP/aGqBtEN2CQsBc9wQkR0FeTNE56BqIpFtckmvXtPsd0y4uftE=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:a2c1:: with SMTP id l184-v6mr2768861lfe.33.1537939475454; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:24:34 -0700
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (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> <CAKr6gn0p0ayWimZ8kWCAfNhLnpaK3j9WOGOmNCMXMac=cLR1Tw@mail.gmail.com> <F6F477B0-28DF-42C3-A8F6-F46BA2E0D119@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <F6F477B0-28DF-42C3-A8F6-F46BA2E0D119@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:24:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJhMdTMr7O0fKs3AVmi8MY91xT0JQZhLvYwtXvD9+ZbvK9QYPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, "<v6ops@ietf.org>" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/gRg50eaZXYljO9PMOvmM79k-nu4>
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 05:24:42 -0000

What better idea did you mean?

Being able to select a protocol based on what works best for the
end-user does not seem like a terrible end-state for the end-user,
short- or long-term.

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 21:25, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
> It was never a good idea. It was a necessary evil (kind of like NAT in that regard) to expeditiously deal with a somewhat tenacious (at the time) problem which has since been given a significantly better solution, but so long as the workaround appears to be working, people are loathe to put in the effort of implementing the actual solution.
>
> sigh… Human nature.
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Sep 25, 2018, at 19:58 , George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote:
>>
>> I have said before, but don't know if I still adhere to it, but
>> anyways, here's a question: How *long* do people think a biassing
>> mechanism like HE is a good idea?
>>
>> * is it a good idea *forever*
>>
>> * or is it a transition path mechanism which has an end-of-life?
>>
>> * how do we know, when its at end-of-life?
>>
>> I used to love HE. I now have a sense, I'm more neutral. Maybe, we
>> actually don't want modified, better happy eyeballs, because we want
>> simpler, more deterministic network stack outcomes with less bias
>> hooks?
>>
>> I barely register if I an on v4 any more. I assume I'm on 6 on many
>> networks. This is as an end-user. I guess if I am really an end user,
>> this belief I understand TCP and UDP is false, and I should stop
>> worrying (as an end user)
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:49 PM 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DNSOP mailing list
>>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop