Geoff Huston <g...@apnic.net> wrote:
>> On 17 Oct 2022, at 7:53 am, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>
wrote:
>> I think that's because
>> recursive nameserves effectively have always done an equivalent to "happy
>> eyeballs", so the risk is low.
> That certainly was not the case in 2015:
https://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2015-10-04-dns-dual-stack.pdf
> I have not seen a large scale measurement since then but I suspect that
nothing has changed. i.e.:
> recursive resolvers do not do the equivalent of happy eyeballs
> behaviour.
What I'm saying (based upon my understanding, and some long ago reading of
code) is that recursive nameservers remember which NS were too slow or
non-functional, and try to avoid them in the future.
(I agree that this isn't exactly happy eyeballs: we don't do requests in
parallel and pick the winner)
So if my v6 infrastructure for my authoritative nameservers fails, but the v4
continues to work, that I'm not too badly off. My experience is that this
resilience can often mask failed servers for months :-)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
