Happy Eyeballs Version 3: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency
draft-ietf-happy-happyeyeballs-v3-02
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (happy WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tommy Pauly , David Schinazi , Nidhi Jaju , Kenichi Ishibashi | ||
| Last updated | 2025-10-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-pauly-happy-happyeyeballs-v3 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources |
GitHub Repository
Mailing list discussion |
||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-happy-happyeyeballs-v3-02
HAPPY Working Group T. Pauly
Internet-Draft Apple Inc
Intended status: Standards Track D. Schinazi
Expires: 23 April 2026 N. Jaju
K. Ishibashi
Google LLC
20 October 2025
Happy Eyeballs Version 3: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency
draft-ietf-happy-happyeyeballs-v3-02
Abstract
Many communication protocols operating over the modern Internet use
hostnames. 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 chance of
establishing a connection more quickly. This document specifies
requirements for algorithms that reduce this user-visible delay and
provides an example algorithm, referred to as "Happy Eyeballs". This
document updates the algorithm description in RFC 8305.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://ietf-wg-
happy/draft-happy-eyeballs-v3/draft-ietf-happy-happyeyeballs-v3.html.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-happy-happyeyeballs-v3/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the HAPPY Working Group
mailing list (mailto:happy@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/happy/. Subscribe at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/happy/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-happy/draft-happy-eyeballs-v3.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
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 https://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 23 April 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Hostname Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Sending DNS Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Handling DNS Answers Asynchronously . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Resolving SVCB/HTTPS Aliases and Targets . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Handling New Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Handling Multiple DNS Server Addresses . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Grouping and Sorting Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Grouping By Application Protocols and Security
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.1. When to Apply Application Preferences . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Grouping By Service Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Sorting Destination Addresses Within Groups . . . . . . . 11
6. Connection Attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Determining successful connection establishment . . . . . 13
6.2. Handling Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) . 15
6.3. Dropping or Pending Connection Attempts . . . . . . . . . 15
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
7. DNS Answer Changes During Happy Eyeballs Connection Setup . . 16
8. Supporting IPv6-Mostly and IPv6-Only Networks . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. IPv4 Address Literals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. Discovering and Utilizing PREF64 . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.3. Supporting DNS64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.4. Hostnames with Broken AAAA Records . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.5. Virtual Private Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Summary of Configurable Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1. Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery . . . . . . . . 21
10.2. Application Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.3. Hiding Operational Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. Introduction
Many communication protocols operating over the modern Internet use
hostnames. 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 chance of
establishing a connection more quickly. This document specifies
requirements for algorithms that reduce this user-visible delay and
provides an example algorithm.
This document defines the algorithm for "Happy Eyeballs", a technique
for reducing user-visible delays on dual-stack hosts. This
definition updates the description in [HEV2], which itself obsoleted
[RFC6555].
The Happy Eyeballs algorithm of racing connections to resolved
addresses has several stages to avoid delays to the user whenever
possible, while respecting client priorities, such as preferring the
use of IPv6 or the availability of protocols like HTTP/3 [HTTP3] and
TLS Encrypted Client Hello [ECH]. This document discusses how to
initiate DNS queries when starting a connection, how to sort the list
of destination addresses received from DNS answers, and how to race
the connection attempts.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
The major difference between the algorithm defined in this document
and [HEV2] is the addition of support for SVCB / HTTPS resource
records [SVCB]. SVCB records provide alternative endpoints and
information about application protocol support, Encrypted Client
Hello [ECH] keys, address hints, and other relevant details about the
services being accessed. Discovering protocol support during
resolution, such as for HTTP/3 over QUIC [HTTP3], allows upgrading
between protocols on the current connection attempts, instead of
waiting for subsequent attempts to use information from other
discovery mechanisms such as HTTP Alternative Services [AltSvc].
These records can be queried along with A and AAAA records, and the
updated algorithm defines how to handle SVCB responses to improve
connection establishment.
2. Conventions and Definitions
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
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Overview
This document defines a method of connection establishment, named the
"Happy Eyeballs Connection Setup". This approach has several
distinct phases:
1. Asynchronous resolution of a hostname into destination addresses
(Section 4)
2. Sorting of the resolved destination addresses (Section 5)
3. Initiation of asynchronous connection attempts (Section 6)
4. Successful establishment of one connection and cancellation of
other attempts (Section 6)
Note that this document assumes that the preference policy for the
host destination address favors IPv6 over IPv4. IPv6 has many
desirable properties designed to be improvements over IPv4 [IPV6].
This document also assumes that the preference policy favors QUIC
over TCP. QUIC only requires one packet to establish a secure
connection, making it quicker compared to TCP [QUIC].
If the host is configured to have different preferences, the
recommendations in this document can be easily adapted.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
4. Hostname Resolution
When a client is trying to establish a connection to a named host, it
needs to determine which destination IP addresses it can use to reach
the host. The client resolves the hostname into IP addresses by
sending DNS queries and collecting the answers. This section
describes how a client initiates DNS queries and asynchronously
handles the answers.
4.1. Sending DNS Queries
Clients first need to determine which DNS resource records they will
include in queries for a named host.
This decision is based on if client has "connectivity" using IPv4 and
IPv6. In this case, "connectivity" for an address family is defined
as having at least one local address of the family from which to send
packets, and at least one non-link local route for the address
family.
When a client has both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, it needs to send
out queries for both AAAA and A records. On a network with only IPv4
connectivity, it will send a query for A records. On a network with
only IPv6 connectivity, the client will either send out queries for
both AAAA and A records, or only a query for AAAA records, depending
on the network configuration. See Section 8 for more discussion of
handling IPv6-mostly and IPv6-only networks.
In addition to requesting AAAA and A records, depending on which
application is establishing the connection, clients can request
either SVCB or HTTPS records [SVCB]. For applications using HTTP or
HTTPS (including applications using WebSockets), the client SHOULD
send a query for HTTPS records.
All of the DNS queries SHOULD be made as soon after one another as
possible. The order in which the queries are sent SHOULD be as
follows (omitting any query that doesn't apply based on the logic
described above):
1. SVCB or HTTPS query
2. AAAA query
3. A query
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
4.2. Handling DNS Answers Asynchronously
Once the client receives sufficient answers to its DNS queries, it
can move onto the phases of sorting addresses (Section 5) and
establishing connections (Section 6).
Implementations SHOULD NOT wait for all answers to return before
starting the next steps of connection establishment. If one query
fails or takes significantly longer to return, waiting for those
answers can significantly delay connection establishment that could
otherwise proceed with already received answers.
Therefore, the client SHOULD treat DNS resolution as asynchronous,
processing different record types independently. Note that if the
platform does not offer an asynchronous DNS API, this behavior can be
simulated by making separate synchronous queries for each record type
in parallel.
The client moves onto sorting addresses and establishing connections
once one of the following condition sets is met:
Either:
* Some positive (non-empty) address answers have been received AND
* A postive (non-empty) or negative (empty) answer has been received
for the preferred address family that was queried AND
* SVCB/HTTPS service information has been received (or has received
a negative response)
Or:
* Some positive (non-empty) address answers have been received AND
* A resolution time delay has passed after which other answers have
not been received
Positive answers can be addresses received either from AAAA or A
records, or address hints received directly in SVCB/HTTPS records.
Negative answers are exclusively responses to AAAA or A records that
contain no addresses (with or without an error like NXDOMAIN). If
all answers come back with negative answers, the connection
establishment will fail or need to wait until other answers are
received.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
On networks that have both default routes for IPv6 and IPv4, IPv6 is
assumed to be the preferred address family. If only one of IPv6 or
IPv4 has a default route, that address family should be considered
the preferred address family for progressing the algorithm.
The resolution time delay is a short time that provides a chance to
receive preferred addresses (via AAAA records) along with service
information (via SVCB/HTTPS records). This accounts for the case
where the AAAA or SVCB/HTTPS records follow the A records by a few
milliseconds. This delay is referred to as the "Resolution Delay".
The RECOMMENDED value for the Resolution Delay is 50 milliseconds.
4.2.1. Resolving SVCB/HTTPS Aliases and Targets
SVCB and HTTPS records describe information for network services.
Individual records are either AliasMode or ServiceMode records, where
AliasMode requires another SVCB/HTTPS query for the alias name.
ServiceMode records either are associated with the original name
being queried, in which case their TargetName is ".", or are
associated with another service name (see Section 2.5 of [SVCB]).
The algorithm in this document does not consider service information
to be received until ServiceMode records are available.
ServiceMode records can contain address hints via ipv6hint and
ipv4hint parameters. When these are received, they SHOULD be
considered as positive non-empty answers for the purpose of the
algorithm when A and AAAA records corresponding to the TargetName are
not available yet. Note that clients are still required to issue A
and AAAA queries for those TargetNames if they haven't yet received
those records. When those records are received, they replace the
hints and update the available set of responses as new answers (see
Section 4.3).
4.2.2. Examples
TODO: Provide examples of various scenarios (simple dual stack, SVCB,
delayed AAAA, delayed SVCB, SVCB hints providing early answers)
4.3. Handling New Answers
If new records arrive while connection attempts are in progress, but
before any connection has been established, then any newly received
addresses are incorporated into the list of available candidate
addresses (see Section 7) and the process of connection attempts will
continue with the new addresses added, until one connection is
established.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
4.4. 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 and IP version used to transport DNS
messages). 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, the client
SHOULD use at least one address from each address family from the
available list.
5. Grouping and Sorting Addresses
Before attempting to connect to any of the resolved destination
addresses, the client defines 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 (see
Section 6). It is important that the ordered list involve all
addresses from both families and all protocols that have been
received by this point, as 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.
The client performs three levels of grouping and sorting of addresses
based on the DNS answers received. Each subsequent level of sorting
only changes orders and preferences within the previously defined
groups.
1. Grouping and sorting by application protocol and security
requirements (Section 5.1)
2. Grouping and sorting by service priorities (Section 5.2)
3. Sorting by destination address preferences (Section 5.3)
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
5.1. Grouping By Application Protocols and Security Requirements
Clients first group based on which application protocols the
destination endpoints support and which security features those
endpoints offer. These are based on information from SVCB/HTTPS
records about application-layer protocols ("alpn" values) and other
parameters like TLS Encrypted Client Hello configuration ("ech"
values, see [SVCB-ECH]).
For cases where the answers do not include any SVCB/HTTPS
information, or if all of the answers are associated with the same
SVCB/HTTPS record, this step is trivial: all answers belong to one
group, and the client assumes they support the same protocols and
security properties.
However, the client is aware of different sets of destination
endpoints that advertise different capabilities when it receives
multiple distinct SVCB/HTTPS records. The client SHOULD separate
these addresses into different groups, such that all addresses in a
group share the same application protocols and relevant security
properties. The specific parameters that are relevant to the client
depend on the client implementation and application.
Note that some destination addresses might need to be added to
multiple groups at this stage. For example, consider the following
HTTPS records:
example.com. 60 IN HTTPS 1 svc1.example.com. (
alpn="h3,h2" ipv6hint=2001:db8::2 )
example.com. 60 IN HTTPS 1 svc2.example.com. (
alpn="h2" ipv6hint=2001:db8::4 )
In this case, 2001:db8::2 can be used with HTTP/3 and HTTP/2, but
2001:db8::4 can only be used with HTTP/2. If the client creates a
grouping for HTTP/3-capable addresses and HTTP/2-capable addresses,
2001:db8::2 would exist in both groups (assuming that all other
security properties are the same).
Connection racing as described in Section 6 applies to different
destination address options within one of these groups. The logic
for prioritizing and falling back between groups of addresses with
different security properties and protocol properties is
implementation-defined.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
5.1.1. When to Apply Application Preferences
Whether or not specific application protocols or security features
are grouped separately is a client application decision. Clients
SHOULD avoid grouping and sorting separately in cases where their use
of an application protocol or feature is non-critical.
For example, an HTTP client loading a simple webpage may not see a
large difference between using HTTP/3 or HTTP/2, and thus can group
the ALPNs together to respect service-determined priorities where
HTTP/3 might be prioritized behind HTTP/2. However, another client
might see significant performance improvements by using HTTP/3's
ability to send unreliable frames for its application use-case and
will group HTTP/3 before HTTP/2.
Similarly, a particular application might require or strongly prefer
the use of TLS ECH for privacy-sensitive traffic, while others might
support ECH opportunistically.
Section 8 of [SVCB-ECH] recommends against SVCB record sets that
contain some answers that include ECH configuration and some that
don't, but notes that such cases are possible. It is possible that
services only include ECH configurations on SVCB answers that are
prioritized behind others that don't include ECH configurations; for
example, this might be used as an experimenation or roll-out
strategy. Due to such cases, clients ought to not arbitrarily group
ECH-containing answers and sort them first if they won't use the ECH
information, or if the connection would not benefit from the use of
ECH. However, for cases where there is a reason for an application
preference for ECH, the client MAY group and prioritize those answers
separately. Even though this might conflict with the published
service record priorities, any answers published by the service are
eligible to be used by clients, and clients can choose to use them.
5.2. Grouping By Service Priority
The next step of grouping and sorting is to group across different
services (as defined by SVCB/HTTPS records), and sort these groups by
priority.
This step allows server-published priorities to be reflected in the
client connection establishment algorithm.
SVCB [SVCB] records indicate a priority for each ServiceMode
response. This priority applies to any IPv4 or IPv6 address hints in
the record itself, as well as any addresses received on A or AAAA
queries for the name in the ServiceMode record. The priority in a
SVCB ServiceMode record is always greater than 0.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
SVCB answers with the lowest numerical value (such as 1) are sorted
first, and answers with higher numerical values are sorted later.
Note that a SVCB record with the TargetName "." applies to the owner
name in the record, and the priority of that SVCB record applies to
any A or AAAA records for the same owner name. These answers are
sorted according to that SVCB record's priority.
All addresses received from a particular SVCB service (within a group
as defined in Section 5.1), either by an associated AAAA or A record
or address hints, SHOULD be separated into a group by the client.
These service-based groups SHOULD then be sorted using the service
priority.
For cases where the answers do not include any SVCB/HTTPS
information, or if all of the answers are associated with the same
SVCB/HTTPS record, this step is trivial: all answers belong to one
group that has the same priority.
When there are multiple services, and thus multiple groups, with the
same priority, the client SHOULD shuffle these groups randomly.
If there are some SVCB/HTTPS services received, but there are AAAA or
A records that do not have an associated service (for example, if no
SVCB/HTTPS record is received for the original name using the "."
TargetName), the unassociated addresses SHOULD be put in a group that
is prioritized at the end of the list.
5.3. Sorting Destination Addresses Within Groups
Within each group of addresses, after grouping based on the logic in
Section 5.1 and Section 5.2, the client sorts the addresses based on
preference and historical data.
First, the client MUST sort the addresses using Destination Address
Selection ([RFC6724], Section 6).
If the client is stateful and has a history of expected round-trip
times (RTTs) 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 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 during authentication, as is the case for TCP
Fast Open [RFC7413] and some Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP)
cookies. This historical data MUST be partitioned using the same
boundaries used for privacy-sensitive information specific to that
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
endpoint, and MUST NOT be used across different network interfaces.
The data SHOULD be flushed whenever a device changes the network to
which it is attached. Clients that use historical data MUST ensure
that clients with different historical data will eventually converge
toward the same behaviors. For example, clients can periodically
ignore historical data to ensure that fresh addresses are attempted.
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 endpoint of the other address family. For example, if
the first address in the sorted list is an IPv6 address, then the
first IPv4 address should be moved up in the list to be second in the
list. An implementation MAY choose to favor one address family more
by allowing multiple addresses of that family to be attempted before
trying the next. The number of contiguous addresses of the first
address family of properties will be referred to as the "Preferred
Address Family Count" and can be a configurable value. This avoids
waiting through a long list of addresses from a given address family
if connectivity over that address family is impaired.
Note that the address selection described in this section only
applies to destination addresses; Source Address Selection
([RFC6724-UPDATE], Section 3.2) is performed once per destination
address and is out of scope of this document.
6. Connection Attempts
Once the list of addresses received up to this point 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, 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 (Section 6.1), all other connections
attempts that have not yet succeeded SHOULD be canceled. Any address
that was not yet attempted as a connection SHOULD be ignored. At
that time, any asynchronous DNS queries MAY be canceled as new
addresses will not be used for this connection. However, the DNS
client resolver SHOULD still process DNS replies from the network for
a short period of time (recommended to be 1 second), as they will
populate the DNS cache and can be used for subsequent connections.
If grouping addresses by application or security requirements
(Section 5.1) produced multiple groups, the application SHOULD start
with connection attempts to the most preferred option. The policy
for attempting any addresses outside of the most preferred group is
up to the client implementation and out of scope for this document.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
If grouping addresses by service (Section 5.2) produced multiple
groups, all of the addresses of the first group SHOULD be started
before starting attempts using the next group. Attempts across
service groups SHOULD be allowed to continue in parallel; in effect,
the groups are flattened into a single list.
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 a
default delay is 250 milliseconds. A more nuanced implementation's
delay should correspond to the time when the previous attempt is
retrying its handshake (such as sending a second TCP SYN or a second
QUIC Initial), based on the retransmission timer ([RFC6298],
[RFC9002]). If the client has historical RTT data gathered from
other connections to the same host or prefix, it can use this
information to influence its delay. Note that this algorithm should
only try to approximate the time of the first handshake packet
retransmission, and not any further retransmissions that may be
influenced by exponential timer back off.
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 congestion 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.
The Connection Attempt Delay is used to set a timer, referred to as
the "Next Connection Attempt Timer". Whenever this timer fires and a
connection has not been successfully established, the next connection
attempt starts, and the timer either is reset to a new delay value
or, in the case of the end of the list being reached, is cancelled.
Note that the delay value can be different for each connection
attempt (depending on the protocol being used and the estimated RTT).
6.1. Determining successful connection establishment
The determination of when a connection attempt has successfully
completed (and other attempts can be cancelled) ultimately depends on
the client application's interpretation of the connection state being
ready to use. This will generally include at least the transport-
level handshake with the remote endpoint (such as the TCP or QUIC
handshake), but can involve other higher-level handshakes or state
checks as well.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
Client connections that use TCP only (without TLS or another protocol
on top, such as for unencrypted HTTP connections) will determine
successful establishment based on completing the TCP handshake only.
When TLS is used on top of of TCP (such as for encrypted HTTP
connections), clients MAY choose to wait for the TLS handshake to
successfully complete before cancelling other connection attempts.
This is particularly useful for networks in which a TCP-terminating
proxy might be causing TCP handshakes to succeed quickly, even though
end-to-end connectivity with the TLS-terminating server will fail.
QUIC connections inherently include a secure handshake in their main
handshakes, and thus usually only need to wait for a single handshake
to complete.
Beyond TCP, TLS, and/or QUIC handshakes, clients may also wait for
other requirements to be met before determining that the connection
establishment was successful. For example, clients generally
validate that the server's certificate provided via TLS is trusted,
and that operation can be asynchronous.
In cases where the connection establishment determination goes beyond
the initial transport handshake, the Next Connection Attempt Timer
ought to be adjusted after the initial transport handshake is
completed. When the connection establishment makes progress, but has
not completed, the timer SHOULD be extended to a new value that
represents an estimated time for the full connection establishment to
complete.
For example, consider a case where connection establishment involves
both a TCP handshake and a TLS handshake. If the timer is initially
set to be roughly at the time when a TCP SYN packet would be
retransmitted, and the TCP handshake completes before the timer
fires, the timer should be adjusted to allow for the time in which
the TLS handshake could complete.
While transport layer handshakes generally do not have restrictions
on attempts to establish a connection, some cryptographic handshakes
may be dependent on SVCB ServiceMode records and could impose
limitations on establishing a connection. For instance, ECH-capable
clients may become SVCB-reliant clients (Section 3 of [SVCB]) when
SVCB records contain the "ech" SvcParamKey [SVCB-ECH]. If the client
is either an SVCB-reliant client or a SVCB-optional client that might
switch to SVCB-reliant connection establishment during the process,
the client MUST wait for SVCB records before proceeding with the
cryptographic handshake.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
6.2. Handling Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN)
The alpn and no-default-alpn SvcParamKeys in SVCB records indicate
the "SVCB ALPN set," which specifies the underlying transport
protocols supported by the associated service endpoint. When the
client requests SVCB records, it SHOULD perform the procedure
specified in Section 7.1.2 of [SVCB] to determine the underlying
transport protocols that both the client and the service endpoint
support. The client SHOULD NOT attempt to make a connection to a
service endpoint whose SVCB ALPN set does not contain any protocols
that the client supports. For example, suppose the client is an HTTP
client that only supports TCP-based versions such as HTTP/1.1 and
HTTP/2, and it receives the following HTTPS record:
example.com. 60 IN HTTPS 1 svc1.example.com. (
alpn="h3" no-default-alpn ipv6hint=2001:db8::2 )
In this case, attempting a connection to 2001:db8::2 or any other
address resolved for svc1.example.com would be incorrect because the
record indicates that svc1.example.com only supports HTTP/3, based on
the ALPN value of "h3".
If the client is an HTTP client that supports both Alt-Svc [AltSvc]
and SVCB (HTTPS) records, the client SHOULD ensure that connection
attempts are consistent with both the Alt-Svc parameters and the SVCB
ALPN set, as specified in Section 9.3 of [SVCB].
6.3. Dropping or Pending Connection Attempts
Some situations related to handling SVCB responses can require
connection attempts to be dropped, or pended until SVCB responses
return.
Section 3.1 of [SVCB] describes client behavior for handling
resolution failures when responses are "cryptographically protected"
using DNSSEC [DNSSEC] or encrypted DNS ([DOT], [DOH], or [DOQ], for
example). If SVCB resolution fails when using cryptographic
protection, clients SHOULD abandon connection attempts altogether to
avoid downgrade attacks.
Use of cryptographic protection in DNS can influence other parts of
Happy Eyeballs connection establishment, as well.
Situations in which DNS is not protected allow for any records to be
blocked or modified, so security properties derived from SVCB records
are opportunistic only. However, when DNS is cryptographically
protected, clients can be stricter about relying on the properties
from SVCB records.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
Section 5.1 of [SVCB] explains that clients "MUST NOT transmit any
information that could be altered by the SVCB response until it
arrives", and specifically mentions properties that affect the TLS
ClientHello. This restriction specifically applies when a client's
behavior will be altered by the SVCB response, which depends both on
the client implementation's ability to support a particular feature,
as well as the client implementation's willingness to rely on the
SVCB response to enable a particular feature.
Based on this, clients in some scenarios MUST pend starting a TLS
handshake (either after TCP or as part of QUIC) until SVCB responses
have been received, even after the "Resolution Delay" defined in
Section 4 has been reached. Specifically, clients MUST pend starting
handshakes if _all_ of the following are true:
1. DNS responses are cryptographically protected with DNSSEC or
encrypted DNS. Note that, if unencrypted and unsigned DNS is
used, SVCB information is opportunistic; clients MAY wait for
SVCB responses but do not need to.
2. The client implementation supports parsing and using a particular
security-related SVCB parameter, such as the "ech" SvcParamKey
[SVCB-ECH]. (In contrast, implementations that do not support
actively using ECH do not need to wait for SVCB resolution if
that is the only reason to do so).
3. The client relies on the presence of the particular SVCB-related
parameter to enable the relevant protocol feature. For example,
if a connection attempt would normally be using cleartext HTTP
unless an HTTPS DNS record would cause the client to upgrade, the
client needs to wait for the record; however, if the client
already would be using HTTP over TLS, then it is not relying on
that signal from SVCB. As another example, some SVCB properties
can affect the TLS ClientHello in ways that optimize performance
(like tls-supported-groups [I-D.ietf-tls-key-share-prediction])
but only aim to save round trips. The other TLS groups can be
discovered through the TLS handshake itself, instead of SVCB, and
thus do not require waiting for SVCB responses.
7. DNS Answer Changes During Happy Eyeballs Connection Setup
If, during the course of connection establishment, the DNS answers
change by either adding resolved addresses (for example due to DNS
push notifications [RFC8765]) 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. Additionally,
once A and AAAA records are received, addresses received via SVCB
hints that are not included in the A and AAAA records for the
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
corresponding address family SHOULD be removed from the list, as
specified in Section 7.3 of [SVCB].
If an address is removed from the list that already had a connection
attempt started, the connection attempt SHOULD NOT be canceled, 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 (see
Section 5).
8. Supporting IPv6-Mostly and IPv6-Only Networks
While many IPv6 transition protocols have been standardized and
deployed, most are transparent to client devices. Supporting
IPv6-only networks often requires specific client-side changes,
especially when interacting with IPv4-only services. Two primary
mechanisms for this are the combined use of NAT64 [RFC6146] with
DNS64 [RFC6147], or leveraging NAT64 with a discovered PREF64 prefix
[RFC8781].
One possible way to handle these networks is for the client device
networking stack to implement 464XLAT [RFC6877]. 464XLAT has the
advantage of not requiring changes to user space software; however,
it requires per-packet translation if the application is using IPv4
literals and does not encourage client application software to
support native IPv6. On platforms that do not support 464XLAT, the
Happy Eyeballs engine SHOULD follow the recommendations in this
section to properly support IPv6-mostly ([V6-MOSTLY]) and IPv6-only
networks.
The features described in this section SHOULD only be enabled when
the host detects an IPv6-mostly or IPv6-only network. A simple
heuristic to detect one of these networks is to check if the network
offers routable IPv6 addressing, does not offer routable IPv4
addressing, and offers a DNS resolver address.
8.1. IPv4 Address Literals
If client applications or users wish to connect to IPv4 address
literals, the Happy Eyeballs engine will need to perform NAT64
address synthesis for them. The solution is similar to "Bump-in-the-
Host" [RFC6535] but is implemented inside the Happy Eyeballs client.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
Note that some IPv4 prefixes are scoped to a given host or network,
such as 0.0.0.0/8, 127.0.0.0/8, 169.254.0.0/16, and
255.255.255.255/32, and therefore do not require NAT64 address
synthesis.
8.2. Discovering and Utilizing PREF64
When an IPv4 address is passed into the Happy Eyeballs implementation
instead of a hostname, it SHOULD use PREF64s received from Router
Advertisements [RFC8781].
With PREF64 available, networks might choose to not deploy DNS64, as
the latter has a number of disadvantages (see [V6-MOSTLY],
Section 4.3.4). To ensure compatibility with such networks, if
PREF64 is available, clients SHOULD send an A query in addition to an
AAAA query for a given hostname. This allows the client to receive
any existing IPv4 A records and perform local NAT64 address
synthesis, eliminating the network's need to run DNS64.
If the network does not provide PREF64s, the implementation SHOULD
query the network for the NAT64 prefix using "Discovery of the IPv6
Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis" [RFC7050]. It then
synthesizes an appropriate IPv6 address (or several) using the
encoding described in "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/ IPv6 Translators"
[RFC6052]. The synthesized addresses are then inserted into the list
of addresses as if they were results from DNS A queries; connection
attempts follow the algorithm described above (see Section 6).
Such translation also applies to any IPv4 addresses received in A
records and IPv4 address hints received in SVCB records.
8.3. Supporting DNS64
If PREF64 is not available and the NAT64 prefix cannot be discovered,
clients SHOULD assume the network is relying on DNS64 for IPv4-to-
IPv6 address synthesis. In this scenario, clients will typically
only receive AAAA records from DNS queries, as DNS64 servers synthese
these records for IPv4-only domains.
8.4. Hostnames with Broken AAAA Records
At the time of writing, there exist a small but non-negligible number
of hostnames that resolve to valid A records and broken AAAA records,
which we define as AAAA records that contain seemingly valid IPv6
addresses but those addresses never reply when contacted on the usual
ports. These can be, for example, caused by:
* Mistyping of the IPv6 address in the DNS zone configuration
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
* Routing black holes
* Service outages
While an algorithm complying with the other sections of this document
would correctly handle such hostnames on a dual-stack network, they
will not necessarily function correctly on IPv6-only networks with
NAT64 and DNS64. Since DNS64 recursive resolvers rely on the
authoritative name servers sending negative (no error, no data)
responses for AAAA records in order to synthesize, they will not
synthesize records for these particular hostnames and will instead
pass through the broken AAAA record.
In order to support these scenarios, the client device needs to query
the DNS for the A record and then perform local synthesis. Since
these types of hostnames are rare and, in order to minimize load on
DNS servers, this A query should only be performed when the client
has given up on the AAAA records it initially received. This can be
achieved by using a longer timeout, referred to as the "Last Resort
Local Synthesis Delay"; the delay is recommended to be 2 seconds.
The timer is started when the last connection attempt is fired. If
no connection attempt has succeeded when this timer fires, the device
queries the DNS for the IPv4 address and, on reception of a valid A
record, treats it as if it were provided by the application (see
Section 8.1).
8.5. Virtual Private Networks
Some Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) may be configured to handle DNS
queries from the device. The configuration could encompass all
queries or a subset such as "*.internal.example.com". These VPNs can
also be configured to only route part of the IPv4 address space, such
as 192.0.2.0/24. However, if an internal hostname resolves to an
external IPv4 address, these can cause issues if the underlying
network is IPv6-only. As an example, let's assume that
"www.internal.example.com" has exactly one A record, 198.51.100.42,
and no AAAA records. The client will send the DNS query to the
company's recursive resolver and that resolver will reply with these
records. The device now only has an IPv4 address to connect to and
no route to that address. Since the company's resolver does not know
the NAT64 prefix of the underlying network, it cannot synthesize the
address. Similarly, the underlying network's DNS64 recursive
resolver does not know the company's internal addresses, so it cannot
resolve the hostname. Because of this, the client device needs to
resolve the A record using the company's resolver and then locally
synthesize an IPv6 address, as if the resolved IPv4 address were
provided by the application (Section 8.1).
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
9. Summary of Configurable Values
The values that may be configured as defaults on a client for use in
Happy Eyeballs are as follows:
* Resolution Delay (Section 4): The time to wait for a AAAA record
after receiving an A record. Recommended to be 50 milliseconds.
* Preferred Address Family Count (Section 5): The number of
addresses belonging to the preferred address family (such as IPv6)
that should be attempted before attempting the next address
family. Recommended to be 1; 2 may be used to more aggressively
favor a particular combination of address family and protocol.
* Connection Attempt Delay (Section 6): The time to wait between
connection attempts in the absence of RTT data. Recommended to be
250 milliseconds.
* Minimum Connection Attempt Delay (Section 6): The minimum time to
wait between connection attempts. Recommended to be 100
milliseconds. MUST NOT be less than 10 milliseconds.
* Maximum Connection Attempt Delay (Section 6): The maximum time to
wait between connection attempts. Recommended to be 2 seconds.
* Last Resort Local Synthesis Delay (Section 8.4): The time to wait
after starting the last IPv6 attempt and before sending the A
query. Recommended to be 2 seconds.
The delay values described in this section were determined
empirically by measuring the timing of connections on a very wide set
of production devices. They were picked to reduce wait times noticed
by users while minimizing load on the network. As time passes, 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. Since IPv6 issues are expected to be
less common, the delays SHOULD be increased with time as client
software is updated.
10. Limitations
Happy Eyeballs will handle initial connection failures at the
transport layer (such as TCP or QUIC); however, other failures or
performance issues may still affect the chosen connection.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
10.1. Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery
For TCP connections, since Happy Eyeballs is only active during the
initial handshake and TCP does not pass the initial handshake, issues
related to MTU can be masked and go unnoticed during Happy Eyeballs.
For QUIC connections, a minimum MTU of at least 1200 bytes [RFC9000],
Section 8.1-5 is guaranteed, but there is a chance that larger values
may not be available. Solving this issue is out of scope of this
document. One solution is to use "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery" [RFC4821].
10.2. Application Layer
If the DNS returns multiple addresses for different application
servers, the application itself may not be operational and functional
on all of them. Common examples include Transport Layer Security
(TLS) and HTTP.
10.3. 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.
11. Security Considerations
Note that applications should not rely upon a stable hostname-to-
address mapping to ensure any security properties, since DNS results
may change between queries. Happy Eyeballs may make it more likely
that subsequent connections to a single hostname use different IP
addresses.
When using HTTP, HTTPS resource records indicate that clients should
require HTTPS when connecting to an origin (see Section 9.5 of
[RFC9460]), so an active attacker can attempt a downgrade attack by
interfering with the successful delivery of HTTPS resource records.
When clients use insecure DNS mechanisms, any on-path attacker can
simply drop HTTPS resource records, so clients cannot tell the
difference between an attack and a resolver that fails to respond to
HTTPS queries.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
However, when using cryptographically protected DNS mechanisms, as
described in Section 3.1 of [RFC9460], both SVCB-reliant and SVCB-
optional clients MUST NOT send any unencrypted data after the TCP
handshake completes unless they have received a valid HTTPS response.
Those clients need to complete a TLS handshake before proceeding if
that response is non-negative.
12. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[ECH] Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. A. Wood, "TLS
Encrypted Client Hello", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-tls-esni-25, 14 June 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
esni-25>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4821>.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6052>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6146>.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6147>.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
[RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6298, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6298>.
[RFC6535] Huang, B., Deng, H., and T. Savolainen, "Dual-Stack Hosts
Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)", RFC 6535,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6535, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6535>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6724>.
[RFC6724-UPDATE]
Buraglio, N., Chown, T., and J. Duncan, "Prioritizing
known-local IPv6 ULAs through address selection policy",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-
update-25, 11 August 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-
rfc6724-update-25>.
[RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7050>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8781] Colitti, L. and J. Linkova, "Discovering PREF64 in Router
Advertisements", RFC 8781, DOI 10.17487/RFC8781, April
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8781>.
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.
[RFC9460] Schwartz, B., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Service Binding
and Parameter Specification via the DNS (SVCB and HTTPS
Resource Records)", RFC 9460, DOI 10.17487/RFC9460,
November 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9460>.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
[SVCB] Schwartz, B., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Service Binding
and Parameter Specification via the DNS (SVCB and HTTPS
Resource Records)", RFC 9460, DOI 10.17487/RFC9460,
November 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9460>.
[SVCB-ECH] Schwartz, B. M., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Bootstrapping
TLS Encrypted ClientHello with DNS Service Bindings", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-08,
16 June 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-08>.
13.2. Informative References
[AltSvc] Nottingham, M., McManus, P., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
Alternative Services", RFC 7838, DOI 10.17487/RFC7838,
April 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7838>.
[DNSSEC] Hoffman, P., "DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", BCP 237,
RFC 9364, DOI 10.17487/RFC9364, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9364>.
[DOH] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
(DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8484>.
[DOQ] Huitema, C., Dickinson, S., and A. Mankin, "DNS over
Dedicated QUIC Connections", RFC 9250,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9250, May 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9250>.
[DOT] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7858>.
[HEV2] Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2:
Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8305>.
[HTTP3] Bishop, M., Ed., "HTTP/3", RFC 9114, DOI 10.17487/RFC9114,
June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114>.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
[I-D.ietf-tls-key-share-prediction]
Benjamin, D., "TLS Key Share Prediction", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-key-share-
prediction-03, 29 August 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-key-
share-prediction-03>.
[IPV6] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200>.
[QUIC] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.
[RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, DOI 10.17487/RFC6555, April
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6555>.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6877>.
[RFC7413] Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC7413, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7413>.
[RFC8765] Pusateri, T. and S. Cheshire, "DNS Push Notifications",
RFC 8765, DOI 10.17487/RFC8765, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8765>.
[RFC9002] Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection
and Congestion Control", RFC 9002, DOI 10.17487/RFC9002,
May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9002>.
[V6-MOSTLY]
Buraglio, N., Caletka, O., and J. Linkova, "IPv6-Mostly
Networks: Deployment and Operations Considerations", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-v6ops-6mops-04, 20
October 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-v6ops-6mops-04>.
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs v3 October 2025
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 Fred Baker, Nick Chettle, Lorenzo Colitti, Igor
Gashinsky, Geoff Huston, Jen Linkova, Paul Hoffman, Philip Homburg,
Warren Kumari, Erik Nygren, Jordi Palet Martinez, Rui Paulo, Stephen
Strowes, Jinmei Tatuya, Dave Thaler, Joe Touch, and James Woodyatt
for their input and contributions.
Authors' Addresses
Tommy Pauly
Apple Inc
Email: tpauly@apple.com
David Schinazi
Google LLC
Email: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com
Nidhi Jaju
Google LLC
Email: nidhijaju@google.com
Kenichi Ishibashi
Google LLC
Email: bashi@google.com
Pauly, et al. Expires 23 April 2026 [Page 26]