Happy Eyeballs for Transport Selection
draft-grinnemo-taps-he-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-07-03
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
TAPS                                                       K-J. Grinnemo
Internet-Draft                                              A. Brunstrom
Intended status: Experimental                                  P. Hurtig
Expires: December 3, 2017                            Karlstad University
                                                              N. Khademi
                                                      University of Oslo
                                                              Z. Bozakov
                                                Dell EMC Research Europe
                                                               June 2017

                 Happy Eyeballs for Transport Selection
                       draft-grinnemo-taps-he-03

Abstract

   Ideally, network applications should be able to select an appropriate
   transport solution from among available transport solutions.
   However, at present, there is no agreed-upon way to do this.  In
   fact, there is not even an agreed-upon way for a source end host to
   determine if there is support for a particular transport along a
   network path.  This draft addresses these issues, by proposing a
   Happy Eyeballs framework.  The proposed Happy Eyeballs framework
   enables the selection of a transport solution that according to
   application requirements, pre-set policies, and estimated network
   conditions is the most appropriate one.  Additionally, the proposed
   framework makes it possible for an application to find out whether a
   particular transport is supported along a network connection towards
   a specific destination or not.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2017.

Grinnemo, et al.        Expires December 3, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   Happy Eyeballs for Transport Selection        June 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
   (http://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.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  The Happy Eyeballs Framework  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Design and Implementation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Candidate List Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Concurrent Connection Attempts  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Example Happy Eyeballs Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Introduction

   Information services on the Internet come in varying forms, such as
Show full document text