Track tasks and feature requests
Join 36 million developers who use GitHub issues to help identify, assign, and keep track of the features and bug fixes your projects need.
Sign up for free See pricing for teams and enterprisesnet: add support for Happy Eyeballs version 2 (RFC 8305) #23841
Comments
mikioh
added this to the Unplanned milestone
Feb 15, 2018
gopherbot
added
the
Proposal
label
Feb 15, 2018
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Summarize what this means for Go, so we don't need to diff RFC 6555 vs 8305. Just add Happy Eyeballs-ish behavior to DNS lookups? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Yup, mostly. FWIW, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8305#appendix-A |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Seems fine. As long as the code can be done without too much complexity. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Accepted but only if the result is simple enough. |
rsc
added
the
Proposal-Accepted
label
Feb 26, 2018
rsc
changed the title
proposal: net: add support for Happy Eyeballs version 2 (RFC 8305)
net: add support for Happy Eyeballs version 2 (RFC 8305)
Feb 26, 2018
rsc
modified the milestones:
Unplanned,
Go1.11
Feb 26, 2018
mikioh
modified the milestones:
Go1.11,
Go1.12
Mar 30, 2018
mehcode
referenced this issue
Jul 10, 2018
Merged
feat(client): implement rfc 6555 (happy eyeballs) #1598
mikioh
modified the milestones:
Go1.12,
Unplanned
Aug 8, 2018
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
mikioh commentedFeb 15, 2018
Since RFC 6555 published, research papers, for example, Measuring the Effects of Happy Eyeballs, depict improvement space for the RFC. In addition, network or service operators speak up that the race is not only for TCP connection setup but for DNS query handling. RFC 8305 Happy Eyeballs version 2 addresses such issues.
To summarize, version 2 clarifies the existing algorithm, modifies the configurable variable values for performance improvement and adds consideration for various circumstances such as IPv6-IPv4 transition and VPN. Luckily, there's no significant user-visible behavioral change.
I'd like to propose to replace the existing RFC 6555 implementation with RFC 8305 implementation after landing dns/dnsmessage package (#16218).