Happy Eyeballs for Transport Selection
draft-grinnemo-taps-he-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-07-08
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text 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: Informational                                 P. Hurtig
Expires: January 9, 2017                             Karlstad University
                                                              N. Khademi
                                                      University of Oslo
                                                            July 8, 2016

                 Happy Eyeballs for Transport Selection
                       draft-grinnemo-taps-he-00

Abstract

   It is widely recognized that it has become very difficult to
   introduce new transport protocols on the Internet.  On reason to this
   is that there are no agreed-upon way for a source end host to find
   out whether there is support for a particular transport protocol
   along the network path from itself to a destination end host or not.
   This document describes a Happy Eyeballs framework that generalizes
   previously proposed Happy Eyeballs mechanisms to include a transport
   protocol, the configuration of this transport protocol, as well as a
   transport address, i.e., to include complete transport solutions.
   The described Happy Eyeballs framework is not only useful in the
   design and implementation of mechanisms that are to determine the
   support of particular transport solutions, but also for the design of
   mechanisms that are to select the transport solution, which,
   according to some criteria, is the most appropriate one to use.

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 January 9, 2017.

Grinnemo, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   Happy Eyeballs for Transport Selection        July 2016

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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.  Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Non-Winning Transport Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Example Happy Eyeballs Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

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

   Concerns have been raised in the past several years that introducing
   new transport protocols on the Internet has become increasingly
   difficult, not least because there is no agreed-upon way for a source
   end host to find out if a transport protocol is supported all the way
   to a destination peer.  Of course, testing a set of candidate
   protocols can be done serially, e.g., try first with the preferred
   choice, X, and, if the connection attempt fails after a suitable
Show full document text