David Conrad wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > > > > What you described is a client with a pretty selfish attitude > > that doesn't care about network, servers and the other clients > > put into code. > > Well, no. What I described was my understanding of a proposal to > facilitate transition that comes with some benefits and some costs. > If nothing else, given the truly inspirational amount of crap on the > Internet, I find it a bit difficult to get worked up about a few > additional packets at communication initiation that are actually beneficial. What you described results in a negative incentive for servers to become accessible under IPv6 as an alternative to IPv4. That is a real problem. If a large number of clients would follow your proposed strategy, ever server that announces an IPv6 address gets hit by twice the amount of connection requests, half of them being killed prenatal or during infancy. If IPv6 connectivity is still bad, then the connection request will not reach the server and the server will not notice. But it is a clear goal to considerably improve on IPv6 connectivity in near term. So the problem this selfish client-side hack addresses is going to become worse for the servers over time. I wonder at what point clients with a selfish attitude will stop optimizing for their own interest alone. The largest effort for client apps is to implement the parallel connection handling at all. Using it for parallel IPv4 connects and not only IPv4+IPv6 comes essentially for free. For typical HTTP-style protocols with small app-requests, sending the client requests in paralell would also be "cheap" for the client. Deciding which connection to retain based on which one yields the fastest server reply is going to improve the "user experience" even more. But the more it seems to "improve" for the client, the worse it gets for the server, the network and all the other clients. > > > The concept works only as long as very few individuals try to > > get an unfair advantage over the rest. But it definitely is > > doomed if EVERYONE, or even a larger number of people would > > practice this. > > We seem to be talking about different things. At the abstract level, it is exactly the same thing. When a project is falling behind schedule there are two things that the responsible manager could do: - ask for more frequent status reports - ask the team what he could do to help them getting it done One of them is inconsiderate, ineffective and popular. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf