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 00:17 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 191F91B306D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 iEzYkTpgVz9M for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218651B3066 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:17:15 -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 t5N0HEpv000978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:17:14 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3A066F7C-E63B-4313-8575-673DFD3AC042"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <B292170A-B8AE-461C-B4C6-5675C17AE9C2@muada.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:17:14 -0700
Message-Id: <14864C65-6802-469D-81E2-F8BEE876681E@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>
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 17:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/fXC64HyibVjBCm27BPw8CRfFqo8>
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 00:17:16 -0000

> On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:11 , Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
> 
> On 23 Jun 2015, at 2:03, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Thus, you’ve got a scenario where NAT64 testing is inadequate vs. NAT64 + Native V6 testing which was, in fact, the original question.
> 
> Like I said, if you want to test for paths that don't support 1500 byte path MTUs, please test with paths that don't support 1500 byte path MTUs rather than make assumptions based on the presence or absence of a packet size reducing apparatus.
> 
> 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…

Meanwhile, the rest of us realize that this isn’t a matter of someone who understands the issue deciding to test (or not) this scenario, but an issue of the use of a particular technology in the test environment obfuscating the issue in other environments thus calling for an expansion of the capabilities of the test environment.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email