IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-pauly-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-update-01

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 03 April 2017 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 02C091293FC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 L_OLHN5DLWd3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3E111294AF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 483674A; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 00:34:31 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:date:date:in-reply-to:from:from :subject:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-type:received :received; s=mail; t=1491258868; bh=nxAZYzMj+3C5qzRdkeSejcZl5Euk eQxWgSiaRIQNZvA=; b=RPvvH6ipCbALFaqLpstY9pGUq3Z7oqMTBTCpxLJUcwap lY/HBG1PUGdKagqOsbCYICma4CyZseqfhJe+29TbvOpVb/+i6lv/Ti96fv8k//ZL FdfcLWaGlwCGe0R74A/a4/oDE83t6mB6wCaPtKUL0jGIgb0WTX9dAEwsBd1b+/E=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id noNglDlQIweR; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 00:34:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:9300:38f1:f248:a9b:8935] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:9300:38f1:f248:a9b:8935]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D29349; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 00:34:27 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E3BA0450-AFBD-4B91-9DF1-188129E1E6C9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <82783B38-E60C-4815-B783-6E7F245BC0E3@consulintel.es>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:34:26 +0200
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Message-Id: <44E2805D-0441-4FA4-A2BB-C8717CE2F69D@steffann.nl>
References: <CAD6AjGSxKftRXGfJ67rYN6Ccr961HMuU69Y=SSwnemvmsqddNQ@mail.gmail.com> <004EF04D-AA6F-4301-A003-83E900826F4B@apple.com> <82783B38-E60C-4815-B783-6E7F245BC0E3@consulintel.es>
To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/nxNG3i93twtSlVMKpQYXWFazXb4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-pauly-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-update-01
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 03 Apr 2017 22:34:40 -0000

Hi,

> I understand that a gradual phase out may be not feasible, or even difficult to standardize as I’m not even sure the IETF process provides that path. So, maybe the only option is to come back in 1-2 years and declare HE historic, maybe as part of the sunset4 WG work.

I once suggested to increase the HE timers to make broken IPv6 a bit more noticeable without breaking stuff completely. In the cases where the server is broken (I have seen insane AAAA records) it might be slightly less pleasant for the user, but suddenly there is a tangible incentive for the server to get fixed. "Unfortunately" the implementation of HE is on the user's side and the software developer's main goal is to provide a good user experience.

But yeah, HE is hiding brokenness. On one hand this is a good thing because it makes people less afraid of deploying IPv6 because the "risk" is lower. On the other hand that lower risk also means that problems don't get solved. My guess is that when more and more NAT64 networks get deployed, and HE doesn't help anymore, the brokenness will get fixed.

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email