[v6ops] Measuring the Effects of Happy Eyeballs

["Bajpai, Vaibhav" <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

Thank you so much for all the feedback on the -00 version.

I have uploaded a new version of the draft with requested 
changes and with a new title:

Revision:	 01
Title:		 Measuring the Effects of Happy Eyeballs
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bajpai-happy-01
Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bajpai-happy-01

It would be nice to get a 10 minute agenda slot to 
present this at the upcoming IETF.

The changes reflect from these discussions:

On Jul 10, 2013, at 3:16 PM, "Bajpai, Vaibhav" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Jul 10, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> […] If you do want to measure this, I think you might have to call it something
>> other than "effectiveness". […]

done! changed the title.

> We argue that since applications on top of TCP will not be happy eyeballed
> only in scenarios where IPv6 connectivity is broken, but also in scenarios
> where the dual-stack host enjoys perfect IPv6 connectivity, we want to
> measure how much imposition does such a user experience in reality by
> measuring the effect of the 300ms timer value.
> 
>> Actually, that's not a good definition either. If the dual-stack host enjoys
>> perfect IPv6 connectivity, then by definition IPv4 can never be better (since
>> IPv6 is perfect), the 300ms timer will never fire. So by "perfect" I think what
>> you really mean is "perfectly reliable".

done! rephrased the definition.

> On Jul 5, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Yourtchenko <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> First, the overall goal. The RFC6555 was not designed to [...]
> 
> […] We will add a section in the draft to clarify the motivation of RFC6555.

done! added a new section clearly describing the goals of happy eyeballs.

> On Jul 8, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Dan Wing <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> The justification for this delay is explained in "Delay IPv4", [...]
> 
> We understand it's a policy discussion to facilitate IPv6 adoption. We will
> add a section describing this policy decision. [...]

done! added a new section on IPv6 upgrade policy.

> On Jul 8, 2013, at 9:09 PM, Tony Hain <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> It doesn't even acknowledge that the target nodes differ. [...]
> 
> We understand that the target nodes differ. We will update the
> text to explicitly mention it.

done! added the text acknowledging the difference.

>> […] clearly lacking the understanding that IPv4 is required
>> to work for Teredo to function…
> 
> We meant when the IPv4 reachability of the destination service is broken
> (not of the end-host). We will amend the text. Thank you for noticing this.

done! rephrased the statement.

Best, Vaibhav

-----------------------------------------------------
Vaibhav Bajpai

Research I, Room 86
Computer Networks and Distributed Systems  (CNDS) Lab
School of Engineering and Sciences
Jacobs University Bremen, Germany

www.vaibhavbajpai.com