El 15 ag 2017, a les 7:37, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> va escriure: > Erm, except when the suboptimal path does *not* have substantially worse > performance for the duration of the session? CDNs are used for other > things than Netflix...
Simple answer: don't wait five seconds. > What are you basing this assessment on? The prevalence of support for MPvD in existing hosts? > Depending on the type of performance problem. If the performance problem > is general, yes. If it is specific to DNS, there's no reason to not use > the connection for other things; and the "send queries to all upstreams" > solution will automatically converge to use the best-performing upstream. I think we are wandering off into nonsense territory here. Have you observed this sort of problem in the field? If so, can you describe what happened? If not, why would we optimize for it? > Right, so if this is the case, how about we specify that routers MAY (or > maybe even SHOULD) support MPvD-specific resolver addresses, and > advertise the fact over HNCP. And that if a router receives such an > announcement from another router it MUST announce the MPvD-specific > resolver addresses over DHCP/RA. This way we ensure that *if* a router > on the network implements MPvD it is going to work for the whole > network; but routers can still opt to not implement the functionality > itself if the implementer doesn't want to pay the implementation cost. Can you describe for us what this implementation cost is that you want to avoid?
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
