Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs WGLC

From: Daniel Roesen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 13:51:06 +0200

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 01:57:26PM -0700, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> To those who say that the algorithm shouldn't prefer IPv6, I disagree. I
> think we all agree that IPv6 is the right way forward in the long term. Our
> problem now is that enabling IPv6 causes lots of pain to a small amount of
> users, and we can't move forward. However, if the maximum impact is 300ms
> additional latency on the first TCP connection to 0.1% of users, then a case
> can be made that it's worth it.

Can't agree more. And I disagree with Marc Blanchet's suggestion to not
bias in favor of IPv6 by default - that's from my PoV the wrong path to
travel. If IPv6 usage is viable, we really really shall use it and avoid
IPv4. This requires the mentioned bias/head-start for IPv6.

> As the draft correctly observes, it's hard to make IPv6 faster than IPv4 if
> everything is running on the same infrastructure (which is the only sane way
> to transition); if you do everything right, you'll get parity. So algorithms
> that try to pick the fastest connection every time will just end up choosing
> one or the other non-deterministically, or - worse - in the arbitrary order
> that they end up doing DNS lookups.

Indeed, and I'm pretty sure operators will look into ways to enforce
bias, e.g. by introducing artificial delays to IPv4 on NATs.

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [email-masked] -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0