Re: [v6ops] PI heresy [draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?]

[Octavio Alvarez <[e-mail]>]

On 13/11/15 11:19, Philip Homburg wrote:
>>> I don't think a host should try to figure out which paths work and which
>>> don't.
>>>
>>> Maybe somebody can come up with a simple algorithm that generalises
>>> happy-eyeballs and that is compatible with today's host operating systems.
>>> But I doubt it. 
>>
>> We tried. It's called shim6. Firewalls break it.
> 
> I'd call shim6 a protocol and not an algorithm. Happy eyeballs is quite 
> compatible with firewalls, NAT, etc. No problem there. I'm sure happy
> eyeballs-like approaches can be tried for the multiple-prefix case.
> 
> The problem I ran into is that by the time my happy eyeballs implementation
> did everything I wanted it do, it was way to complex. Adding support for
> many source prefixes would just be too much.
> 
> Now, maybe somebody can come up with an approach that doesn't have that
> problem. Don't know.
> 
> Mean while, I have something that works with every operating system today.
> It may not be perfect. So I'm not terribly motivated to add more host
> complexity to solve those edge cases.

Can you elaborate on your approach?

Thanks.