IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Happy eyeballs update, draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-02

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Wed, 25 May 2011 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F333130065 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2011 07:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BhcgGefY44j0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2011 07:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AEE5130061 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2011 07:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4PEnHpb031328 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2011 15:49:17 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk p4PEnHpb031328
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1306334957; bh=KcK3W8DYlwznUOQdS5PTztqEYYM=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=cRIW+KBv1IcwnO48svPiBElx6UxAf5uiyPsQEdcVdV7Kn0N5aocZTx1OoovHl7bAo oAanXcz9eC9OrNzVWW5hBDonU3/7V9EE94seMWzSdgyxHhYCHj4Kh0Eqbp6OWNrO44 VXVAxK6bEsFfTtt9l2Clh5QsrqT0kwZn1zXRxXRQ=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP id n4OFnH0035634633Ry ret-id none; Wed, 25 May 2011 15:49:17 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f105:226:8ff:fee4:215b] ([IPv6:2001:630:d0:f105:226:8ff:fee4:215b]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4PEnAA3001840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2011 15:49:10 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CE8995AB5D178F44A2154F5C9A97CAF4024D31C969B1@HE111541.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 15:49:10 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|9fa9b79dfd5233eef895bbfe8a378e70n4OFnH03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|D444871C-39E0-48F7-9160-13C931608D88@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: Your message of "Tue, 24 May 2011 17:25:40 -0700 ." <06d801cc1a72$4735e4d0$d5a1ae70$@com> <m1QPCao-0001h6C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CE8995AB5D178F44A2154F5C9A97CAF4024D31C969B1@HE111541.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <D444871C-39E0-48F7-9160-13C931608D88@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: IPv6 Operations Working Group <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=n4OFnH003563463300; tid=n4OFnH0035634633Ry; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: p4PEnHpb031328
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Happy eyeballs update, draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-02
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:49:25 -0000

On 25 May 2011, at 15:23, <Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de> wrote:

> I disagree with Philips opinion.
> 
> I think we have to prefer IPv6 since we simply want to push back IPv4 in the case that IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity are equal in quality. Otherwise we would never get rid of IPv4 since nobody will switch of IPv4 servers when he sees incoming IPv4 connections.
> That's why I also like the 200 ms head start for IPv6 since this seems to come close to an (IPv4) exit strategy I requested a few discussion cycles before.

I agree.

I notice the latest Chrome now has IPv4 fallback code in it, which gives IPv6 a 300ms head start.  Not a pure Happy Eyeballs implementation, but a very nice start, and much better than a 21 second fallback.

See http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2011/05/stable-channel-update_24.html
and more specifically the tail of http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=81686

Kudos to Lorenzo and those involved to get this out in time for IPv6 Day; if you have issues on the 8th just get Chrome :)

Also worth noting that in some cases you can predict the page fetch so the content is coming in before the user hits their enter key or clicks somewhere.

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email