RFC 6555: Happy Eyeballs: Success with Dual-Stack Hosts
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 8305.
Current version: RFC 8305 — Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
When a server's IPv4 path and protocol are working, but the server's IPv6 path and protocol are not working, a dual-stack client application experiences significant connection delay compared to an IPv4-only client. This is undesirable because it causes the dual- stack client to have a worse user experience. This document specifies requirements for algorithms that reduce this user-visible delay and provides an algorithm. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6555
- Published
- April 2012
- Authors
- D. Wing; A. Yourtchenko
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- ops
- Pages
- 15
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoleted by:
- RFC 8305
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6536Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control ModelObsoleted
March 2012
- RFC 6576IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement TestingCurrent
March 2012
- RFC 6534Loss Episode Metrics for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)Current
May 2012
- RFC 6583Operational Neighbor Discovery ProblemsCurrent
March 2012
- RFC 6526IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Per Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) StreamCurrent
March 2012
- RFC 6589Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6Current
April 2012
- RFC 6615Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Flow Information ExportCurrent
June 2012
- RFC 6632An Overview of the IETF Network Management StandardsCurrent
June 2012
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?