Hi Joe,
Thanks for your comments!
On 2017-03-21 23:41, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, all,
Some observations:
- HE-trans MUST NOT be used to try different combinations of options
within a given transport
Sounds reasonable, trying out options is not the target here. Not sure
if options even need to be discussed in the draft.
- I'm wondering about the potential for problems when ports are reused
between different attempts, e.g., IPv6-TCP then IPv4-TCP
This should be the same as for RFC6555, so I do not think any new
problems in relation to port reuse are introduced.
- the document works only for connection-orient transports that treat
failed connections as "no information"
if a connection fails for other reasons, the origin might receive
an ICMP message that prohibits further attempts, either to that
transport, port, or address
if a connection attempt is rejected but used as information, you
could end up with confusing results (e.g., as a covert channel)
in that case, you're not doing HE; IMO, HE requires that there be
no impact to failed attempts
I do not follow this argument. Why does HE require that there be no
impact to failed attempts? I think caching of failed connection attempts
is important to reduce network load. RFC6555 also requires that the
client MUST cache information regarding the outcome of each connection
attempt, so the same principle should be followed here I think.
Thanks again for your comments,
Anna
Joe
On 3/14/2017 2:37 AM, Anna Brunstrom wrote:
Hi all,
The draft below on happy eyeballs was submitted last night. It is on
the agenda for Chicago, but we are happy to hear any comments you may
have also before then.
Cheers,
Anna
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-grinnemo-taps-he-02.txt
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:18:59 -0700
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: Zdravko Bozakov <zdravko.boza...@dell.com>, Zdravko Bozakov
<zdravko.boza...@dell.com>, Anna Brunstrom <anna.brunst...@kau.se>,
Per Hurtig <per.hur...@kau.se>, Karl-Johan Grinnemo
<karl-johan.grinn...@kau.se>, Naeem Khademi <nae...@ifi.uio.no>
A new version of I-D, draft-grinnemo-taps-he-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Karl-Johan Grinnemo and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-grinnemo-taps-he
Revision: 02
Title: Happy Eyeballs for Transport Selection
Document date: 2017-03-13
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 10
URL:https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-grinnemo-taps-he-02.txt
Status:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-grinnemo-taps-he/
Htmlized:https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-grinnemo-taps-he-02
Diff:https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-grinnemo-taps-he-02
Abstract:
Ideally, network applications should be able to select an appropriate
transport solution from among available transport solutions.
However, at present, there is no agreed-upon way to do this. In
fact, there is not even an agreed-upon way for a source end host to
determine if there is support for a particular transport along a
network path. This draft addresses these issues, by proposing a
Happy Eyeballs framework. The proposed Happy Eyeballs framework
enables the selection of a transport solution that according to
application requirements, pre-set policies, and estimated network
conditions is the most appropriate one. Additionally, the proposed
framework makes it possible for an application to find out whether a
particular transport is supported along a network connection towards
a specific destination or not.
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
