Am I the only person that thinks that if shaving 50ms off HTTP latency is a worthwhile goal it would be more appropriate to look at a DNS based signaling mechanism that is going to support that goal (and also do the right thing for IPv4/6) rather than look at various ways to coax the desired behavior from the legacy infrastructure.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-25 20:08, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2010, at 09:56, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > >> trying v6 for a couple of seconds before trying v4 in parallel > > > > I don't think this is realistic for applications like the Web, where > people are now creating Youtube-Spots with high-speed cameras that show, in > slow-motion, a potato cannon fired in parallel with a web page loading (the > web page is faster than the potato, of course). > > Shaving 50 ms off the HTTP latency is a major improvement in user > experience for a Web user. > > I think we're talking about the initial phase of contact with a server. > Obviously, > once a best path is chosen, you will stick to it until there is a glitch. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
