I'm not speaking for Owen. I'm speaking for myself. I asked a question. Is this really a long-term defensible thing to do? Do we want HE forever?
run a race? thats fine. But, as the thread here notes, the second-by-second conditions which leads one TCP to return SYN-ACK before another can be volatile. run a race, but bias the race towards the one you like? okaaaay.. But once we're beyond a world where the V6 needs the bias, for anyone stuck on the vestigial 4-is-better space, this means they incurred *additional* connection penalty. wheres the control knob? now we're talking about tuning the bias, weighting the sum, tumbling the dice. I thought it was a crap shoot anyway... -G On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:24 PM Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote: > > What better idea did you mean? > > Being able to select a protocol based on what works best for the > end-user does not seem like a terrible end-state for the end-user, > short- or long-term. > > > On Sep 25, 2018, at 21:25, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It was never a good idea. It was a necessary evil (kind of like NAT in that > > regard) to expeditiously deal with a somewhat tenacious (at the time) > > problem which has since been given a significantly better solution, but so > > long as the workaround appears to be working, people are loathe to put in > > the effort of implementing the actual solution. > > > > sigh… Human nature. > > > > Owen > > > > > >> On Sep 25, 2018, at 19:58 , George Michaelson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I have said before, but don't know if I still adhere to it, but > >> anyways, here's a question: How *long* do people think a biassing > >> mechanism like HE is a good idea? > >> > >> * is it a good idea *forever* > >> > >> * or is it a transition path mechanism which has an end-of-life? > >> > >> * how do we know, when its at end-of-life? > >> > >> I used to love HE. I now have a sense, I'm more neutral. Maybe, we > >> actually don't want modified, better happy eyeballs, because we want > >> simpler, more deterministic network stack outcomes with less bias > >> hooks? > >> > >> I barely register if I an on v4 any more. I assume I'm on 6 on many > >> networks. This is as an end-user. I guess if I am really an end user, > >> this belief I understand TCP and UDP is false, and I should stop > >> worrying (as an end user) > >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:49 PM Davey Song <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> But in the general case the network cannot. > >>>> Think host multi-homing. > >>> > >>> > >>> Yes or no. > >>> > >>> Generally speaking the races of IPv6 and IPv4 connections on both network > >>> and client are going to be suffered by netowrk dynamics, including > >>> Multi-homing, route flaps, roaming, or other network falilures. > >>> Extremely, a client can get a better IPv6 connection in one second (when > >>> IPv6 win the race), and lose it in next second. In such case, more > >>> sophisticated measurement should be done(on client or network) , for a > >>> longer period, on statistics of RTT and Failure rate, or combinations of > >>> them. But in IMHO, the assumption of HE is relatively stable network for > >>> short exchange connections. The dynamics exits but relatively rare or no > >>> notable impact on HE. So I see no such discussion in RFC8035. > >>> > >>> Davey > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> DNSOP mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> v6ops mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DNSOP mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
