Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 TURN/IPV6 RFC 6156.

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

> Is there a citation for this data point about IPv6 not working as well in production? 
[BA] At IETF 87 (and in several meetings prior to that), we have had a discussion within the MMUSIC WG about "Happy Eyeballs for ICE" (draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs):http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-mmusic-0.pdf
> There used to be an issue with 6to4 and maybe Teredo, but i believe
> the data shows that this issue has largely been resolved
> http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html via host treatment
> of those tunnels as well as happy-eyeballs in browsers.
[BA] Those statistics do not relate to ICEv6 usage, and in particular, they don't cover the range of behavior that we see in enterprise and carrier networks.  As an example, in deployments we have encountered IPv6 NATs and firewalls with a wide range of behavior, IPv6-only carrier networks where connectivity to IPv4 endpoints is needed, etc.  
> I believe happy-eyeballs / RFC6555 would apply to WebRTC interactions
> equally well, since the signalling is over the standard HTTP/HTTPS calls.
[BA] RFC 6555 doesn't directly apply to ICE, which is why we've been having a distinct "ICE Happy Eyeballs" discussion.