Re: The IPv6 Transitional Preference Problem

there are many packet level tools ad server based packages that can  
help forecast and pipe v6 loads seamless to your user stack.

Sent from my iPhone (SDK).  Please excuse my brevity.

On Jun 24, 2010, at 1:23 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:

> Martin,
>
> On Jun 23, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
>> What you described results in a negative incentive for servers to
>> become accessible under IPv6 as an alternative to IPv4.  That is a  
>> real problem.
>
> I guess I'm not seeing how it is a significant negative incentive to  
> servers.
>
>> If IPv6 connectivity is still bad, then the connection request will
>> not reach the server and the server will not notice.
>
> Right.  So, the only case where a parallel open would potentially  
> have any impact on the server is when there is good v6  
> connectivity.  Presumably, if a server operator has configured v6,  
> they are anticipating v6 load and will have engineered for that  
> load.  Since for any given session, the application will either  
> communicate via v4 or via v6, not both, the additional load on the  
> server will be exactly one additional communication initiation  
> event.  I honestly have difficulty seeing a server operator building  
> a system so close to the edge that this would be a real concern,  
> particularly given any server connected to the Internet today is  
> going to be subject to vastly more load due to random scans from  
> malware.
>
> In the serial case, there are two options: v4 first or v6 first.  If  
> v4 is chosen first, it is unlikely v6 will ever be used, thus the  
> server operator setting up v6 would be a waste of time.  If v6 is  
> chosen first, then the client will have to wait for the v6  
> initiation to time out in the case of bad v6 connectivity.  My guess  
> is that this would result in an increase in support calls to the  
> server operator ("why is your server so slow?") with the typical  
> support center response being "turn off v6 support".  I believe this  
> has been empirically demonstrated.
>
> I personally don't see how we'll get anywhere with v6 deployment  
> using the serial approach nor do I see any other options than  
> parallel vs. serial.  Since you believe parallel open to be a  
> problem, what is your proposed alternative?
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf