Joel's iPad
On Jun 23, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Martin Rex <mrex(_at_)sap(_dot_)com> wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 18, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
What you described is a client with a pretty selfish attitude
that doesn't care about network, servers and the other clients
put into code.
Well, no. What I described was my understanding of a proposal to
facilitate transition that comes with some benefits and some costs.
If nothing else, given the truly inspirational amount of crap on the
Internet, I find it a bit difficult to get worked up about a few
additional packets at communication initiation that are actually beneficial.
What you described results in a negative incentive for servers to
become accessible under IPv6 as an alternative to IPv4. That is a real
problem. If a large number of clients would follow your proposed
strategy, ever server that announces an IPv6 address gets hit by
twice the amount of connection requests, half of them being killed
prenatal or during infancy.
We have tcp syn cookies actually to protect against the impact of state
generation on connect. As long as you as a client reply only to one syn/ack,
everything is cool.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf