Hi, > Op 26 okt. 2016, om 17:04 heeft Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> het > volgende geschreven: > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Sander Steffann wrote: > >> HE head start = 300 + (months after 2017-01-01) * 30 > > I don't believe in this. Trying to deploy something by severely degrading the > customer experience in the fail case is worse than just failing it completely.
Fair enough > It would be better to keep it at 300 ms (still significant penalty), but > instead recommend the OS vendor to install some kind of heuristic to flag for > the user somehow that their IPv6 connectivity is degraded, and offer to fault > find it... or let's invent some kind of telemetry where these kinds of > breakages can be reported to the OS vendor so they can contact the ISP and > alert them to the breakage? I would be very interested in telemetry, but also to the website owner. I see too many unspecified, localhost, 6to4 and ipv4-mapped addresses in DNS without the website owner every even noticing their setup is broken. Which is why I suggested a more gradual approach than letting it fail hard, but maybe that is what we need at some point. > Also, we still have the problem with PMTU blackhole detection and mitigation. > Why isn't this turned on more? Another good question Cheers, Sander
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
