Re: [v6ops] RFC6555 / Multiple interfaces

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 02 January 2017 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5526129706 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 12:08:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 FMc75dwqVLp9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 12:08:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22f.google.com (mail-pg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67EE91296B4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 12:08:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id f188so206474663pgc.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:08:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=jFrvB6D6G6WLCyTLA0cDVJ4wRHkmgORx4ihqaG1kQoE=; b=jSzKBzs3YcBCi1xxgK1+UceSr9LJ4d7jgamBcZqzxrpxDcfbs2rZxBSOSIVWFHPbYE AfJqzF9RFkWhhm7FKIXtUSabObhX1ZNkldQTFkLvQEaEIOlGe/ThozVGVlH2+K2PNdtn 7wSJq97YM34+7rDfRxV7BSUWosIntFk+fzo02dV1oAGM1sHlhXM/N+eades9U13fnfQM Se7QUDQ2ZvvdvulS8g+gRJhgnJuugHAzJ+GSz34HOlFM/kEp1OMK9oumGVyYJ49k0luX Hy9NfuMUkuyERsrcbcO/MCZqOglNR33xJVdxVtr/z2dWpxnU1DaAadwHxFaYRX//CoYq xUww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=jFrvB6D6G6WLCyTLA0cDVJ4wRHkmgORx4ihqaG1kQoE=; b=te5zSOIFPQzdKumV7SR8w5RpPbmiL10m3ERQw1zqYt2moBoMft/+Cdrwqjk3dI9CJf sDex4cErxjiqKRx1+xubA3oQ9z1Yyfx58hWUZPVEuuRh/6/iNCW3WhVS/lBDB5W1BSX6 TE22/T8c5QANdekUeaD71moVSVJPZCCtiOSaBZ/v2wqFyKf7S6iUcNNhMVs2+aRyBjAM 7yem/a/a34402/ycdzVDpNQFjgMLe6z5yJAra7dhYwtyETtudDGB4BDtmGDZB1gwKTXB HA2c/Hknfn/H/bfH6AshBMl1k96ZNKHsFcgR3yBqAyARZHTQ5B5y9lIrrmxDKS1BfWko fDLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKFEPCSuYsvMMM2Tw1eMlPsZgYemMiJ8dSwhjOoRviUH6RadE4e3NaPFN98wBZpZQ==
X-Received: by 10.84.202.163 with SMTP id x32mr128824619pld.46.1483387721936; Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:08:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (wsip-184-191-158-59.sd.sd.cox.net. [184.191.158.59]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l11sm134213530pfb.28.2017.01.02.12.08.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:08:40 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <SN2PR03MB23507DE3BE34A6770387DE2EB26F0@SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:09:18 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B6272BAB-C18C-4641-AC00-40906AF0969E@gmail.com>
References: <SN2PR03MB23500102CF7EDAD42630881FB2940@SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <C37C2227-7B42-4246-8F61-C0D1DE411B98@gmail.com> <SN2PR03MB235015A5229B7E10A265EA89B2690@SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAO42Z2wy0KORhUbXC+7EZphemigi2wd4YWDJ-JBjOXEbiejVYw@mail.gmail.com> <6cc8fa42-cb66-816b-f000-3635cde9cc90@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1612310559380.1747@uplift.swm.pp.se> <651319E6-BF0B-4700-B875-EA77440EB2C4@gmail.com> <SN2PR03MB23507DE3BE34A6770387DE2EB26F0@SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/XZOmYtpp4fhMqqeKQ2CHhg7YxAo>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC6555 / Multiple interfaces
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:08:44 -0000

On Jan 2, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Asveren, Tolga <tasveren@sonusnet.com> wrote:
> I would like to (re)express my interest in defining how happy-eyeballs (RFC6555) should behave in the context of multiple interfaces. I think draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-11 could be a good candidate for that but I also have to admit I was hoping for something with less procedures/simpler -which may/may not be possible/a good idea at the end-.

Again, speaking strictly for myself.

One of the big problems with IPv6 deployment, perhaps the biggest single problem, is that the badly broken socket interface forces the application to know about and select the address that will be used for a given session. There is no need for that if an API is included that allows the application to find out what address it is using should it need that. If the application were to give the OS a character string (which might be an address literal, a domain name, or something else of local significance) and the OS returned an open socket or an error code, many applications would have ported long ago without a thought; as it is, the case needs to be made to each application individually. The best bet is steps such as Apple has taken - “how badly do you want your application to be available through our distribution service? Just Do It.”

The downside of Happy Eyeballs is that it asks the application to do something more complex than changing the name of the API called and the size of the container the address is stored in; it tells the application that it needs to walk a list of addresses and potentially have more than one connection in progress at any given time. If it were an OS service, we could change the OS once and have HE implemented for all applications. Making the requested action more complex makes “making the case to every individual application” harder.

And then there is draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension. IMHO, an implementation report, as in “application X, Y, and Z did it on multiple platforms, and provably interoperate using it”, would be in order.