Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn0p0ayWimZ8kWCAfNhLnpaK3j9WOGOmNCMXMac=cLR1Tw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:25:16 -0700
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, "<v6ops@ietf.org>" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F6F477B0-28DF-42C3-A8F6-F46BA2E0D119@delong.com>
References: <153751052820.5339.10049404273601155140.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <CAAObRXLWpXVbPyyxuzJH8osi+R1rdV8N8=Woqvq3UR9nk8kDaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJE_bqd4jjeZy9Stp-v6O0VOyvEJiE9vW1BLuy-wzqPGvDagoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAObRX+6ktcD8i_aToKbX7UJoSPT0NMPV0xKqT8-k+7_d0R5Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180925072015.GV11393@Space.Net>
 <CAAObRXKhS++5_cmvjTx3LY+ti6NbGj1NvtL6XeQGOvYuJKw0uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3BDC24C2-6D51-4FF1-8A48-CAD4F8CEBF9C@employees.org>
 <CAAObRXJd3Ym_JezijzFVGGUj6hnkLd78dA-B_oug1gZ_-kbeAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKr6gn0p0ayWimZ8kWCAfNhLnpaK3j9WOGOmNCMXMac=cLR1Tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/UYkElnTqajzZ6EsuZZYl_7IURTE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [DNSOP] New Version Notification for
 draft-v6ops-xie-network-happyeyeballs-00.txt
Precedence: list

It was never a good idea. It was a necessary evil (kind of like NAT in =
that regard) to expeditiously deal with a somewhat tenacious (at the =
time) problem which has since been given a significantly better =
solution, but so long as the workaround appears to be working, people =
are loathe to put in the effort of implementing the actual solution.

sigh=E2=80=A6 Human nature.

Owen


> On Sep 25, 2018, at 19:58 , George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> =
wrote:
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> * is it a good idea *forever*
>=20
> * or is it a transition path mechanism which has an end-of-life?
>=20
> * how do we know, when its at end-of-life?
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> 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 <songlinjian@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>> But in the general case the network cannot.
>>> Think host multi-homing.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Yes or no.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Davey
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops