> Second of all, the IETF has worked on e.g. something called â??Happy Eyeball$
Your sketch of it makes it sound as though this is designed fairly specifically for Web use; even the name makes it sound as though it's all about presenting data to a human. As described, it is completely inapplicable to something that, like NTP, does not establish connections. NTP could do something similar, using multiple addresses (if returned) for a peer specified by name; personally, I'd call that unnecessary complication. > Client launches both v6 and v4 sockets with reasonable delay to prevent addi$ You're saying you start multiple connections every time to..._reduce_ traffic? Run that by me again? > In my experience IPv6 outages are way over exaggerated, there are similar th$ That disagrees with my experience. I've been using both protocols for over a decade, and my experience is that v6 outages are substantially commoner than v4 outages - and that v4 outages are almost invariably accompanied by v6 outages as well. I can't offhand think of even a single incident when v4 was broken but v6 was working (except by design, when a piece of network deliberately has a v6-only uplink). /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
