In message <505cdd21.4080...@foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard writes: > On 21/09/2012 19:23, Tony Hain wrote: > > App developers have never wanted to be aware of the network. > > By not sitting down and thinking about the user experience of a > dual-stacked network, we have now forced them to be aware of the network > and that's not a good thing because they are as clued out about networking > as most network operators are about programming. If we had designed a > portable and consistent happy-eyeballs API 10 years ago, it would be widely > available for use now. But we didn't do that because we were thinking > about the network rather than the users. So now, each dual stack developer > is going to have to sit down and reimplement happy eyeballs for themselves. > What a waste.
RFC 1123 told app developers that they needed to support multihomed servers. That was over 2 decades ago. HE would not have been needed if app developers had followed that advice. > > As far as they > > are concerned it is the network managers job to get bits from the endpoint > > they are on to the endpoint they want to get to. Making them do contortions > > to figure out that they need to, and then how to, tell the network to do > > that adds complexity to their development and support. This is not an IPv6 > > issue, it is historic reality. > > No, it's a current reality for early venturers into ipv6. It may become a > future reality in the mainstream if ipv6 takes off in a way that I can't > foresee at the moment. One day in the future, maybe, it will become less > of an issue if people go back to a single-stack endpoint system. IPv6 will still be multi-homed. Dual stack is just a example of multi-homed. > > And something that is easy to fix by simply deploying a 6to4 relay in each > > AS and announcing the correct IPv6 prefix set to make it symmetric. > > In theory yes. In practice no. > > > event. Those that are doing so intentionally, while providing the long term > > path in parallel, can be described as weaning their customers off the > > legacy. Those that are doing so inadvertently, because they don't care abou > t > > anything but their tiny part of the overall system, will lose customers to > > the provider offering the long term path. > > So long as the cost of that is less than the cost of deploying ipv6 and > pushing people in that direction, it's a good business plan in the short > term. Which is what most people care about. I'm with you that it's a > hopeless long term business plan, but that's not the world we live in. > > Nick > > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
