Re: The IPv6 Transitional Preference Problem

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf