|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 8305
Last modified on Thursday, December 21st, 2017
 Permanent link to RFC 8305
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8305
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8305
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Schinazi
Request for Comments: 8305 T. Pauly
Obsoletes: 6555 Apple Inc.
Category: Standards Track December 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721
Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency
 Abstract
Many communication protocols operating over the modern Internet use
hostnames. These often resolve to multiple IP addresses, each of
which may have different performance and connectivity
characteristics. Since specific addresses or address families (IPv4
or IPv6) may be blocked, broken, or sub-optimal on a network, clients
that attempt multiple connections in parallel have a chance of
establishing a connection more quickly. This document specifies
requirements for algorithms that reduce this user-visible delay and
provides an example algorithm, referred to as "Happy Eyeballs". This
document obsoletes the original algorithm description in RFC 6555.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8305.
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Hostname Resolution Query Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Handling Multiple DNS Server Addresses . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Sorting Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Connection Attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. DNS Answer Changes during Happy Eyeballs Connection Setup . . 8
7. Supporting IPv6-Only Networks with NAT64 and DNS64 . . . . . 8
7.1. IPv4 Address Literals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Hostnames with Broken AAAA Records . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3. Virtual Private Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Summary of Configurable Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Application Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.3. Hiding Operational Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Differences from RFC 6555 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
1. Introduction
Many communication protocols operating over the modern Internet use
hostnames. These often resolve to multiple IP addresses, each of
which may have different performance and connectivity
characteristics. Since specific addresses or address families (IPv4
or IPv6) may be blocked, broken, or sub-optimal on a network, clients
that attempt multiple connections in parallel have a chance of
establishing a connection more quickly. This document specifies
requirements for algorithms that reduce this user-visible delay and
provides an example algorithm.
This document defines the algorithm for "Happy Eyeballs", a technique
for reducing user-visible delays on dual-stack hosts. This
definition obsoletes the original description in [RFC 6555]. Now that
this approach has been deployed at scale and measured for several
years, the algorithm specification can be refined to improve its
reliability and general applicability.
The Happy Eyeballs algorithm of racing connections to resolved
addresses has several stages to avoid delays to the user whenever
possible, while preferring the use of IPv6. This document discusses
how to handle DNS queries when starting a connection on a dual-stack
client, how to create an ordered list of destination addresses to
which to attempt connections, and how to race the connection
attempts.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
as shown here.
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
2. Overview
This document defines a method of connection establishment, named the
"Happy Eyeballs Connection Setup". This approach has several
distinct phases:
1. Initiation of asynchronous DNS queries [Section 3]
2. Sorting of resolved destination addresses [Section 4]
3. Initiation of asynchronous connection attempts [Section 5]
4. Establishment of one connection, which cancels all other attempts
[Section 5]
Note that this document assumes that the preference policy for the
host destination address favors IPv6 over IPv4. IPv6 has many
desirable properties designed to be improvements over IPv4 [RFC 8200].
If the host is configured to have a different preference, the
recommendations in this document can be easily adapted.
3. Hostname Resolution Query Handling
When a client has both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity and is trying to
establish a connection with a named host, it needs to send out both
AAAA and A DNS queries. Both queries SHOULD be made as soon after
one another as possible, with the AAAA query made first and
immediately followed by the A query.
Implementations SHOULD NOT wait for both families of answers to
return before attempting connection establishment. If one query
fails to return or takes significantly longer to return, waiting for
the second address family can significantly delay the connection
establishment of the first one. Therefore, the client SHOULD treat
DNS resolution as asynchronous. Note that if the platform does not
offer an asynchronous DNS API, this behavior can be simulated by
making two separate synchronous queries on different threads, one per
address family.
The algorithm proceeds as follows: if a positive AAAA response (a
response with at least one valid AAAA record) is received first, the
first IPv6 connection attempt is immediately started. If a positive
A response is received first due to reordering, the client SHOULD
wait a short time for the AAAA response to ensure that preference is
given to IPv6 (it is common for the AAAA response to follow the A
response by a few milliseconds). This delay will be referred to as
the "Resolution Delay". The recommended value for the Resolution
Delay is 50 milliseconds. If a positive AAAA response is received
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
within the Resolution Delay period, the client immediately starts the
IPv6 connection attempt. If a negative AAAA response (no error, no
data) is received within the Resolution Delay period or the AAAA
response has not been received by the end of the Resolution Delay
period, the client SHOULD proceed to sorting addresses (see
Section 4) and staggered connection attempts (see Section 5) using
any IPv4 addresses returned so far. If the AAAA response arrives
while these connection attempts are in progress but before any
connection has been established, then the newly received IPv6
addresses are incorporated into the list of available candidate
addresses (see Section 6) and the process of connection attempts will
continue with the IPv6 addresses added, until one connection is
established.
3.1. Handling Multiple DNS Server Addresses
If multiple DNS server addresses are configured for the current
network, the client may have the option of sending its DNS queries
over IPv4 or IPv6. In keeping with the Happy Eyeballs approach,
queries SHOULD be sent over IPv6 first (note that this is not
referring to the sending of AAAA or A queries, but rather the address
of the DNS server itself and IP version used to transport DNS
messages). If DNS queries sent to the IPv6 address do not receive
responses, that address may be marked as penalized and queries can be
sent to other DNS server addresses.
As native IPv6 deployments become more prevalent and IPv4 addresses
are exhausted, it is expected that IPv6 connectivity will have
preferential treatment within networks. If a DNS server is
configured to be accessible over IPv6, IPv6 should be assumed to be
the preferred address family.
Client systems SHOULD NOT have an explicit limit to the number of DNS
servers that can be configured, either manually or by the network.
If such a limit is required by hardware limitations, the client
SHOULD use at least one address from each address family from the
available list.
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
4. Sorting Addresses
Before attempting to connect to any of the resolved destination
addresses, the client should define the order in which to start the
attempts. Once the order has been defined, the client can use a
simple algorithm for racing each option after a short delay (see
Section 5). It is important that the ordered list involve all
addresses from both families that have been received by this point,
as this allows the client to get the racing effect of Happy Eyeballs
for the entire list, not just the first IPv4 and first IPv6
addresses.
First, the client MUST sort the addresses received up to this point
using Destination Address Selection ([RFC 6724], Section 6).
If the client is stateful and has a history of expected round-trip
times (RTTs) for the routes to access each address, it SHOULD add a
Destination Address Selection rule between rules 8 and 9 that prefers
addresses with lower RTTs. If the client keeps track of which
addresses it used in the past, it SHOULD add another Destination
Address Selection rule between the RTT rule and rule 9, which prefers
used addresses over unused ones. This helps servers that use the
client's IP address during authentication, as is the case for TCP
Fast Open [RFC 7413] and some Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP)
cookies. This historical data MUST NOT be used across different
network interfaces and SHOULD be flushed whenever a device changes
the network to which it is attached.
Next, the client SHOULD modify the ordered list to interleave address
families. Whichever address family is first in the list should be
followed by an address of the other address family; that is, if the
first address in the sorted list is IPv6, then the first IPv4 address
should be moved up in the list to be second in the list. An
implementation MAY want to favor one address family more by allowing
multiple addresses of that family to be attempted before trying the
other family. The number of contiguous addresses of the first
address family will be referred to as the "First Address Family
Count" and can be a configurable value. This is performed to avoid
waiting through a long list of addresses from a given address family
if connectivity over that address family is impaired.
Note that the address selection described in this section only
applies to destination addresses; Source Address Selection
([RFC 6724], Section 5) is performed once per destination address and
is out of scope of this document.
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
5. Connection Attempts
Once the list of addresses received up to this point has been
constructed, the client will attempt to make connections. In order
to avoid unreasonable network load, connection attempts SHOULD NOT be
made simultaneously. Instead, one connection attempt to a single
address is started first, followed by the others in the list, one at
a time. Starting a new connection attempt does not affect previous
attempts, as multiple connection attempts may occur in parallel.
Once one of the connection attempts succeeds (generally when the TCP
handshake completes), all other connections attempts that have not
yet succeeded SHOULD be canceled. Any address that was not yet
attempted as a connection SHOULD be ignored. At that time, the
asynchronous DNS query MAY be canceled as new addresses will not be
used for this connection. However, the DNS client resolver SHOULD
still process DNS replies from the network for a short period of time
(recommended to be 1 second), as they will populate the DNS cache and
can be used for subsequent connections.
A simple implementation can have a fixed delay for how long to wait
before starting the next connection attempt. This delay is referred
to as the "Connection Attempt Delay". One recommended value for a
default delay is 250 milliseconds. A more nuanced implementation's
delay should correspond to the time when the previous attempt is
sending its second TCP SYN, based on the TCP's retransmission timer
[RFC 6298]. If the client has historical RTT data gathered from other
connections to the same host or prefix, it can use this information
to influence its delay. Note that this algorithm should only try to
approximate the time of the first SYN retransmission, and not any
further retransmissions that may be influenced by exponential timer
back off.
The Connection Attempt Delay MUST have a lower bound, especially if
it is computed using historical data. More specifically, a
subsequent connection MUST NOT be started within 10 milliseconds of
the previous attempt. The recommended minimum value is 100
milliseconds, which is referred to as the "Minimum Connection Attempt
Delay". This minimum value is required to avoid congestion collapse
in the presence of high packet-loss rates. The Connection Attempt
Delay SHOULD have an upper bound, referred to as the "Maximum
Connection Attempt Delay". The current recommended value is 2
seconds.
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
6. DNS Answer Changes during Happy Eyeballs Connection Setup
If, during the course of connection establishment, the DNS answers
change by either adding resolved addresses (for example due to DNS
push notifications [DNS-PUSH]) or removing previously resolved
addresses (for example, due to expiry of the TTL on that DNS record),
the client should react based on its current progress.
If an address is removed from the list that already had a connection
attempt started, the connection attempt SHOULD NOT be canceled, but
rather be allowed to continue. If the removed address had not yet
had a connection attempt started, it SHOULD be removed from the list
of addresses to try.
If an address is added to the list, it should be sorted into the list
of addresses not yet attempted according to the rules above (see
Section 4).
7. Supporting IPv6-Only Networks with NAT64 and DNS64
While many IPv6 transition protocols have been standardized and
deployed, most are transparent to client devices. The combined use
of NAT64 [RFC 6146] and DNS64 [RFC 6147] is a popular solution that is
being deployed and requires changes in client devices. One possible
way to handle these networks is for the client device networking
stack to implement 464XLAT [RFC 6877]. 464XLAT has the advantage of
not requiring changes to user space software; however, it requires
per-packet translation if the application is using IPv4 literals and
does not encourage client application software to support native
IPv6. On platforms that do not support 464XLAT, the Happy Eyeballs
engine SHOULD follow the recommendations in this section to properly
support IPv6-only networks with NAT64 and DNS64.
The features described in this section SHOULD only be enabled when
the host detects one of these networks. A simple heuristic to
achieve that is to check if the network offers routable IPv6
addressing, does not offer routable IPv4 addressing, and offers a DNS
resolver address.
7.1. IPv4 Address Literals
If client applications or users wish to connect to IPv4 address
literals, the Happy Eyeballs engine will need to perform NAT64
address synthesis for them. The solution is similar to "Bump-in-the-
Host" [RFC 6535] but is implemented inside the Happy Eyeballs library.
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
When an IPv4 address is passed into the library instead of a
hostname, the device queries the network for the NAT64 prefix using
"Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis"
[RFC 7050] and then synthesizes an appropriate IPv6 address (or
several) using the encoding described in "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/
IPv6 Translators" [RFC 6052]. The synthesized addresses are then
inserted into the list of addresses as if they were results from DNS
queries; connection attempts follow the algorithm described above
(see Section 5).
7.2. Hostnames with Broken AAAA Records
At the time of writing, there exist a small but non-negligible number
of hostnames that resolve to valid A records and broken AAAA records,
which we define as AAAA records that contain seemingly valid IPv6
addresses but those addresses never reply when contacted on the usual
ports. These can be, for example, caused by:
o Mistyping of the IPv6 address in the DNS zone configuration
o Routing black holes
o Service outages
While an algorithm complying with the other sections of this document
would correctly handle such hostnames on a dual-stack network, they
will not necessarily function correctly on IPv6-only networks with
NAT64 and DNS64. Since DNS64 recursive resolvers rely on the
authoritative name servers sending negative ("no error no answer")
responses for AAAA records in order to synthesize, they will not
synthesize records for these particular hostnames and will instead
pass through the broken AAAA record.
In order to support these scenarios, the client device needs to query
the DNS for the A record and then perform local synthesis. Since
these types of hostnames are rare and, in order to minimize load on
DNS servers, this A query should only be performed when the client
has given up on the AAAA records it initially received. This can be
achieved by using a longer timeout, referred to as the "Last Resort
Local Synthesis Delay"; the delay is recommended to be 2 seconds.
The timer is started when the last connection attempt is fired. If
no connection attempt has succeeded when this timer fires, the device
queries the DNS for the IPv4 address and, on reception of a valid A
record, treats it as if it were provided by the application (see
Section 7.1).
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
7.3. Virtual Private Networks
Some Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) may be configured to handle DNS
queries from the device. The configuration could encompass all
queries or a subset such as "*.internal.example.com". These VPNs can
also be configured to only route part of the IPv4 address space, such
as 192.0.2.0/24. However, if an internal hostname resolves to an
external IPv4 address, these can cause issues if the underlying
network is IPv6-only. As an example, let's assume that
"www.internal.example.com" has exactly one A record, 198.51.100.42,
and no AAAA records. The client will send the DNS query to the
company's recursive resolver and that resolver will reply with these
records. The device now only has an IPv4 address to connect to and
no route to that address. Since the company's resolver does not know
the NAT64 prefix of the underlying network, it cannot synthesize the
address. Similarly, the underlying network's DNS64 recursive
resolver does not know the company's internal addresses, so it cannot
resolve the hostname. Because of this, the client device needs to
resolve the A record using the company's resolver and then locally
synthesize an IPv6 address, as if the resolved IPv4 address were
provided by the application (Section 7.1).
8. Summary of Configurable Values
The values that may be configured as defaults on a client for use in
Happy Eyeballs are as follows:
o Resolution Delay (Section 3): The time to wait for a AAAA response
after receiving an A response. Recommended to be 50 milliseconds.
o First Address Family Count (Section 4): The number of addresses
belonging to the first address family (such as IPv6) that should
be attempted before attempting another address family.
Recommended to be 1; 2 may be used to more aggressively favor a
particular address family.
o Connection Attempt Delay (Section 5): The time to wait between
connection attempts in the absence of RTT data. Recommended to be
250 milliseconds.
o Minimum Connection Attempt Delay (Section 5): The minimum time to
wait between connection attempts. Recommended to be 100
milliseconds. MUST NOT be less than 10 milliseconds.
o Maximum Connection Attempt Delay (Section 5): The maximum time to
wait between connection attempts. Recommended to be 2 seconds.
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
o Last Resort Local Synthesis Delay (Section 7.2): The time to wait
after starting the last IPv6 attempt and before sending the A
query. Recommended to be 2 seconds.
The delay values described in this section were determined
empirically by measuring the timing of connections on a very wide set
of production devices. They were picked to reduce wait times noticed
by users while minimizing load on the network. As time passes, it is
expected that the properties of networks will evolve. For that
reason, it is expected that these values will change over time.
Implementors should feel welcome to use different values without
changing this specification. Since IPv6 issues are expected to be
less common, the delays SHOULD be increased with time as client
software is updated.
9. Limitations
Happy Eyeballs will handle initial connection failures at the TCP/IP
layer; however, other failures or performance issues may still affect
the chosen connection.
9.1. Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery
Since Happy Eyeballs is only active during the initial handshake and
TCP does not pass the initial handshake, issues related to MTU can be
masked and go unnoticed during Happy Eyeballs. Solving this issue is
out of scope of this document. One solution is to use "Packetization
Layer Path MTU Discovery" [RFC 4821].
9.2. Application Layer
If the DNS returns multiple addresses for different application
servers, the application itself may not be operational and functional
on all of them. Common examples include Transport Layer Security
(TLS) and HTTP.
9.3. Hiding Operational Issues
It has been observed in practice that Happy Eyeballs can hide issues
in networks. For example, if a misconfiguration causes IPv6 to
consistently fail on a given network while IPv4 is still functional,
Happy Eyeballs may impair the operator's ability to notice the issue.
It is recommended that network operators deploy external means of
monitoring to ensure functionality of all address families.
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
10. Security Considerations
Note that applications should not rely upon a stable hostname-to-
address mapping to ensure any security properties, since DNS results
may change between queries. Happy Eyeballs may make it more likely
that subsequent connections to a single hostname use different IP
addresses.
11. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
[RFC 4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4821>.
[RFC 6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6052, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6052>.
[RFC 6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6146,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6146>.
[RFC 6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6147, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6147>.
[RFC 6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6298, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6298>.
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
[RFC 6535] Huang, B., Deng, H., and T. Savolainen, "Dual-Stack Hosts
Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)", RFC 6535,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6535, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6535>.
[RFC 6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6555, April
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6555>.
[RFC 6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6724, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6724>.
[RFC 7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7050, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7050>.
[RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>.
12.2. Informative References
[DNS-PUSH] Pusateri, T. and S. Cheshire, "DNS Push Notifications",
Work in Progress, draft-ietf-dnssd-push-13, October 2017.
[RFC 6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6877, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6877>.
[RFC 7413] Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7413, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7413>.
[RFC 8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8200>.
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 13
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
Appendix A. Differences from RFC 6555
"Happy Eyeballs: Success with Dual-Stack Hosts" [RFC 6555] mostly
concentrates on how to stagger connections to a hostname that has a
AAAA and an A record. This document additionally discusses:
o how to perform DNS queries to obtain these addresses
o how to handle multiple addresses from each address family
o how to handle DNS updates while connections are being raced
o how to leverage historical information
o how to support IPv6-only networks with NAT64 and DNS64
Note that a simple implementation of the algorithm described in this
document is still compliant with the previous specification
[RFC 6555]. Implementations should take the new considerations into
account when applicable to optimize their behavior.
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 14
RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs v2 December 2017
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dan Wing, Andrew Yourtchenko, and everyone else who
worked on the original Happy Eyeballs design [RFC 6555], Josh
Graessley, Stuart Cheshire, and the rest of team at Apple that helped
implement and instrument this algorithm, and Jason Fesler and Paul
Saab who helped measure and refine this algorithm. The authors would
also like to thank Fred Baker, Nick Chettle, Lorenzo Colitti, Igor
Gashinsky, Geoff Huston, Jen Linkova, Paul Hoffman, Philip Homburg,
Warren Kumari, Erik Nygren, Jordi Palet Martinez, Rui Paulo, Stephen
Strowes, Jinmei Tatuya, Dave Thaler, Joe Touch, and James Woodyatt
for their input and contributions.
Authors' Addresses
David Schinazi
Apple Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, California 95014
United States of America
Email: dschinazi@apple.com
Tommy Pauly
Apple Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, California 95014
United States of America
Email: tpauly@apple.com
Schinazi & Pauly Standards Track PAGE 15
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 32917 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, December 21st, 2017
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
