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

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

Speaking for myself, I see HE as a mechanism whose usefulness as described (selecting between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses) will wane, but which applied in a different way may have value long term. The latter has to do with access from or to multi-addressed services and selecting the one that seems to work best most of the time - even if all of the addresses are IPv6 addresses (or, in the RFC 6555 timeframe, all of the addresses were IPv4 addresses). As IPv4 winds down, yes, HE as described will become anachronistic - there won't be a choice to make. It will become, as NAT64 will, a service that is more work to remove than it's worth, but eventually isn't implemented in new implementations and nobody notices. But in the more general sense of multihoming, it may have longer term value.

Again speaking for myself, if it's a technology with declining value, it seems to me to not be something to invest in long term. RFC 6555 addressed a very real and measurable problem - host applications could find themselves waiting longer than their users could bear to a connection to complete. RFC 8305 improved on that. Further investment needs, I think, to have the same kind of investigation a monetary investment needs - is there a real need being addressed, and does the investment address it?

I haven't drawn any conclusions, but that gives you an idea of the questions in my head.

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 7:58 PM, George Michaelson <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that there is a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven is an interesting comment on projected traffic volume...