Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (v6ops WG)
Last updated 2017-04-10
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document (wg milestone: Nov 2017 - Update RFC 6555 with... )
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network                                                         T. Pauly
Internet-Draft                                               D. Schinazi
Obsoletes: 6555 (if approved)                                 Apple Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                           April 8, 2017
Expires: October 10, 2017

    Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency
                     draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-00

Abstract

   Many communication protocols operated over the modern Internet uses
   host names.  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 higher chance of
   establishing a connection sooner.  This document specifies
   requirements for algorithms that reduce this user-visible delay and
   provides an example algorithm.

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 October 10, 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

Pauly & Schinazi        Expires October 10, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              Happy Eyeballs v2                 April 2017

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Hostname Resolution Query Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Handling Multiple DNS Server Addresses  . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Sorting Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Connection Attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  DNS Answer Changes during Happy Eyeballs Connection Setup . .   6
   7.  Summary of Configurable Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery  . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Application Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.3.  Hiding Operational Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Appendix A.  Differences from RFC6555 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   Many communication protocols operated over the modern Internet uses
   host names.  These often correspond to multiple IP addresses, whose
   performance can vary.  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 higher
   chance of establishing a connection sooner.  This document specifies
   requirements for algorithms that reduce this user-visible delay and
   provides an algorithm.

   This documents expands on "Happy Eyeballs" [RFC6555], a technique of
   reducing user-visible delays on dual-stack hosts.  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 generalization.  This document recommends an algorithm of racing
   resolved addresses that has several stages of ordering and racing to
   avoid delays to the user whenever possible, while preferring the use

Pauly & Schinazi        Expires October 10, 2017                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              Happy Eyeballs v2                 April 2017

   of IPv6.  Specifically, it discusses how to handle DNS queries when
   starting a connection on a dual-stack client, how to create an
   ordered list of 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
   "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].

2.  Overview

   This document defines a method of connection establishment, defined
   as "Happy Eyeballs Connection Setup".  This approach has several
   distinct phases:

   1.  Initiation of asynchronous DNS queries [Section 3]

   2.  Sorting of resolved addresses [Section 4]

   3.  Initiation of asynchronous connection attempts [Section 5]

   4.  Establishment of one connection, which cancels all other attempts

   Note that this document assumes that the host address preference
   policy favors IPv6 over IPv4.  If the host is configured differently,
   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, immediately
   followed by the A query.

   Implementations MUST 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 MUST treat DNS
   resolution as asynchronous.  Note that if the platforms 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.  If the AAAA query returns first, the first IPv6

Pauly & Schinazi        Expires October 10, 2017                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              Happy Eyeballs v2                 April 2017

   connection attempt MUST be immediately started.  If the A query
   returns first, the client SHOULD wait for a short time for the AAAA
   response.  This delay will be referred to as the "Resolution Delay".
   The RECOMMENDED value for the Resolution Delay is 50 milliseconds.
   If the AAAA response is received within the Resolution Delay period,
   the client MUST immediately start the IPv6 connection attempt.  If,
   at the end of the Resolution Delay period, the AAAA response has not
   been received but the A response has been received, the client SHOULD
   proceed to Sorting Addresses [Section 4] and staggered connection
   attempts [Section 5] using only the 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 [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).  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, it is
   RECOMMENDED to use at least one address from each address family from
   the available list.

4.  Sorting Addresses

   Before attempting to connect to any of the resolved 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 [Section 5].  It is important
   that the ordered list involves all addresses from both families, as

Pauly & Schinazi        Expires October 10, 2017                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              Happy Eyeballs v2                 April 2017

   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 using Destination Address
   Selection ([RFC6724], Section 6).

   If the client is stateful and has history of expected round-trip
   times (RTT) 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 has 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 for authentication, as is the case for TCP Fast
   Open ([RFC7413]) and some HTTP cookies.  This historical data MUST
   NOT be used across networks, and SHOULD be flushed on network
   changes.

   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.

5.  Connection Attempts

   Once the list of addresses 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 cancelled.  Any address that was not yet
   attempted as a connection SHOULD be ignored.

   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 this
   delay is 250 milliseconds.  If the client has historical RTT data, it
   can also use the expected RTT to choose a more nuanced delay value.

Pauly & Schinazi        Expires October 10, 2017                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              Happy Eyeballs v2                 April 2017

   The recommended formula for calculating the delay after starting a
   connection attempt is: MAX( 1.25 * RTT_MEAN + 4 * RTT_VARIANCE, 2 *
   RTT_MEAN ), where the RTT values are based on the statistics for
   previous address used.  If the TCP implementation leverages
   historical RTT data to compute SYN timeout, these algorithms should
   match so that a new attempt will be started at the same time as the
   previous is sending its second TCP SYN.  While TCP implementations
   often leverage an exponential backoff when they detect packet loss,
   the "Connection Attempt Delay" SHOULD NOT such an aggressive backoff,
   as it would harm user experience.

   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 congestive 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.

6.  DNS Answer Changes during Happy Eyeballs Connection Setup

   If, during the course of connection establishment, the DNS answers
   change either by 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 cancelled, 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
   (Section 4).

7.  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 at 50 milliseconds.

Pauly & Schinazi        Expires October 10, 2017                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              Happy Eyeballs v2                 April 2017

   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 as 1, or 2 to more aggressively favor one address
      family.

   o  Connection Attempt Delay (Section 5): The time to wait between
      connection attempts in the absence of RTT data.  RECOMMENDED at
      250 milliseconds.

   o  Minimum Connection Attempt Delay (Section 5): The minimum time to
      wait between connection attempts.  RECOMMENDED at 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 at 2 seconds.

   As time advances, 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.  In particular, IPv6
   issues are expected to be less common, therefore the Resolution Delay
   SHOULD be increased with time as client software is updated.

8.  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.

8.1.  Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery

   Since Happy Eyeballs is only active during the initial handshake and
   TCP does not pas 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.

8.2.  Application Layer

   If the DNS returns multiple application servers for a given service,
   the application itself may not be operational and functional on all
   of them.  Common examples include Transport Layer Security (TLS) and
   the Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP).

Pauly & Schinazi        Expires October 10, 2017                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              Happy Eyeballs v2                 April 2017

8.3.  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.

9.  Security Considerations

   This memo has no direct security considerations.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

11.  Acknowledgments

   The authors thank Dan Wing, Andrew Yourtchenko, and everyone else who
   worked on the original Happy Eyeballs design ([RFC6555]), 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 Nick Chettle, Paul Hoffman, Philip Homburg, Joe
   Touch and James Woodyatt for their input and contributions.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6555]  Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
              Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, DOI 10.17487/RFC6555, April
              2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6555>.

   [RFC6724]  Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
              "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.

Pauly & Schinazi        Expires October 10, 2017                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft              Happy Eyeballs v2                 April 2017

12.2.  Informative References

   [DNS-PUSH]
              Pusateri, T. and S. Cheshire, "DNS Push Notifications",
              Work in Progress, draft-ietf-dnssd-push, March 2017.

   [RFC7413]  Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
              Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC7413, December 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7413>.

Appendix A.  Differences from RFC6555

   "Happy Eyeballs: Success with Dual-Stack Hosts" [RFC6555] mostly
   concentrates on how to stagger connections to a hostname that has an
   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

Authors' Addresses

   Tommy Pauly
   Apple Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, California  95014
   US

   Email: tpauly@apple.com

   David Schinazi
   Apple Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, California  95014
   US

   Email: dschinazi@apple.com

Pauly & Schinazi        Expires October 10, 2017                [Page 9]