On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 08:37:25AM -0400, Bill Owens wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 01:27:34PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 01:20:17PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > > Apple is free to provide a reasonable implementation right away... not > > > that they would change it, just because there is an RFC... > > > > Given their ignorance of collateral damage done to operators, users > > and IPv6 deployment in general by their implementation of Happy > > Eyeballs (alias "Hampering Eyeballs"), I have zero hope. > > My recollection of the complaint about Apple's implementation is that > it doesn't bias the choice in favor of IPv6; is that the root of the > problem?
Yes. As connection setup latency is the only KPI used. As multiple operators have outlined, NAT doesn't really add latency above noise thresholds, so statistically the native, low-cost, unconstrained (non-NATted) IPv6 path looks "same" like the (possibly tunnelled), high-cost, crippled (NATted) IPv4 path. AAPL often prefers NATted IPv4 above native, non-NATed IPv6. Damage done. A reasonable bias would fix this for most cases, and no really harm the corner cases as far as I can see. Anyway, the users will have to pay for that. Too bad users of !AAPL have to subsidize those decisions. Time for an AAPL user NAT tax? :) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [email protected] -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
