Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) (fwd)

[Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>]

>Message-Id: <B3D554CD-B528-4D77-9C20-774D57FED760@sackheads.org>
>Cc: Igor Gashinsky <igor@gashinsky.net>, shim6-wg <shim6@psg.com>
>From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
>Subject: Re: shim6 @ NANOG   (forwarded note from John Payne) (fwd)
>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 13:01:18 -0500
> To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>


On Mar 3, 2006, at 3:26 AM, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> This was something that was brought up in the famous L.A Nanog
> session, but I actually fail to see in what way you think shim6 add
> delay to the initial hit? You will look up the destination in DNS,
> get multiple AAAA's back, perform RFC3483 and start communicating.
> That is the same, with or without shim6. If it is a short lived
> session and failure occurs, that is no worse than IPv4 which will
> also have to timeout and retry.

The issue is first hit under failed conditions.

AIUI with the current plan, you'd get multiple AAAAs back vs one
multihomed A leading to a potentially long cycle of TCP timeouts
before getting a AAAA that actually worked.

Unless you want to try parallalising SYNs and racing them off...
which has other issues :)