IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Happy eyeballs suggestions, was: Re: Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Tue, 23 June 2015 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 309351B3123 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 GRicB1lSCCLG for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0871B3104 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:ae87:a3ff:fe29:7192] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:ae87:a3ff:fe29:7192]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.4/8.14.2) with ESMTP id t5N0YdBa002457 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:34:39 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <52696645-3449-4AD4-8C80-1D17DFB52F2D@muada.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:34:38 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6DCAFFCB-A668-41C4-9B11-7C8A8FBDB531@delong.com>
References: <E1C235B5-1421-4DAF-A2F3-F963982233DF@apple.com> <90744458-CA06-4347-A96B-D649800855D3@muada.com> <CAKC-DJhQ3kSPtkVHoPxtiUO-CbQkymehDF735nr8Q6=EUdUz0Q@mail.gmail.com> <1068D9DB-4300-473F-B511-880C1E9FB73D@muada.com> <78ABF014-6E93-40B8-8ABC-5BAF8AF96A47@nestlabs.com> <27D48517-5882-4E0A-9288-814D07C607C0@muada.com> <9AFFDD3E-4D15-45CC-A80A-C87A671F0D2E@nestlabs.com> <D3310B7C-C0CD-45D6-9054-CDF08C6E5A58@muada.com> <E58BE586-3637-4724-8480-6817EBBD8A91@nestlabs.com> <6ACE98FF-8609-46B2-BD35-78D413BE6F0E@muada.com> <CC3DEE36-8B83-405A-AA8C-985ABDA64EFA@delong.com> <B292170A-B8AE-461C-B4C6-5675C17AE9C2@muada.com> <14864C65-6802-469D-81E2-F8BEE876681E@delong.com> <52696645-3449-4AD4-8C80-1D17DFB52F2D@muada.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/KXIIFI7-Rjxy1ovGouCNdC1Se2Q>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Happy eyeballs suggestions, was: Re: Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:35:07 -0000

> On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:29 , Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
> 
> On 23 Jun 2015, at 2:17, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> 
>>> But IPv6 UDP applications shouldn't concern themselves with testing for PMTUD black holes. This breaks TCP anyway, giving the user much bigger fish to fry. And IPv4 UDP applications should leave the DF bit alone because setting it to one can only end in tears.
> 
>> And once again, Iljitsch lets religion get in the way of understanding the way the real world works…
> 
> That would be true if I were talking about IPv4 UDP applications not testing for PMTUD black holes. Which I also stand behind; the internet needs larger packets, so any action to artificially limit packet sizes is counterproductive.
> 
> But my point about IPv6 UDP applications is not religious, it's just simple common sense: if the protocol that occupies 85% of the internet's packets is going to fail anyway, why bother doing extra work to keep one particular application that occupies a small fraction of the remaining 15% running? (I.e., with unlike with IPv4, with IPv6, TCP and UDP have the same failure mode in the presence of PMTUD black holes. And if depending on PMTUD is too deemed dangerous, then 1280 is the answer, with no need for any testing.)
> 

Because the tests against TCP are going to notice the problem where the problem may get masked for UDP  without the developer ever being the wiser.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email