IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] An Update to Happy Eyeballs

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 09 March 2017 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 BE5A61297BC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 10:34:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 5B0Li_NZQYdL for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 10:34:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (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 CD728129705 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 10:34:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.184.163] ([128.9.184.163]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v29IXsIQ027650 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 9 Mar 2017 10:33:54 -0800 (PST)
To: Nick Chettle <nick@nccnetworks.co.uk>, David Schinazi <dschinazi@apple.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <148899860042.20118.391380898590855642.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A609BABB-BDF2-4CCB-8452-F489C019748C@apple.com> <DB5PR05MB1030F0C8AA7091494BEE0C6C84210@DB5PR05MB1030.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <528589be-b3fd-d635-1ed0-2f4c5cbaa344@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 10:33:53 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DB5PR05MB1030F0C8AA7091494BEE0C6C84210@DB5PR05MB1030.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: v29IXsIQ027650
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/lhQW_XhED29ucxTvtJDOL4FL-5w>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] An Update to Happy Eyeballs
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: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:34:25 -0000


On 3/9/2017 9:22 AM, Nick Chettle wrote:
> Both queries SHOULD be sent on the wire as
>    close together as possible, with the ordering being dictated by the
>    system's host address preference policy.
With one or more layers (link, tunnel, etc.), and possibly one or more
"wires", the end system might not have any control over this requirement.

Why is it needed?

(if it applies ONLY if the queries end up on the same "wire", how would
an end system even detect that?)

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email