happy CGN -- beating happy eyeballs and trending toward E2E success

Andrew Dickinson whydna at whydna.net
Wed Jun 13 01:37:53 CEST 2012

Is there any reason to have a delay at all (at least for TCP)?

Would it be unreasonable for a client implementation to simultaneously
send a SYN on both v4 and v6?  It would then issue a RST for the
SYN-ACK that arrives last.  I recognize that this may need to be done
at the application layer which probably makes it a no-go of a
generalized solution, but I suspect it could be incorporated into an
OS's TCP stack.


On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Daniel Roesen <dr at cluenet.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 05:21:05PM -0400, Erik Nygren wrote:
>> A "good" Happy Eyeballs implementation should compare IPv4 vs IPv6
>> TCP (HTTP) performance and availability with some preference towards
>> IPv6 (whether it is 30ms or 300ms).
> Unfortunately, Apple thinks different:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg10080.html
> Best regards,
> Daniel
> --
> CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list