The IPv6 Day: Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !

[Carlos Friacas]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> Not necessarily true always.
>
> I've much better connectivity to many IPv6 sites than with IPv4. Example
> IETF 151 ms with IPv6, 124 with IPv6.

Yes. but the point here is consulintel's connectivity, not IETF's :-)
Sometimes we can see latency using IPv6 is lower, and it can be sometimes 
higher than in IPv4. What it should never be is *hugely* higher...


> This is always relative. Of course, it depends on how both ends are
> connected, and this will improve with the time.

This line of thinking is what is causing the comments about the global 
ipv6 network's lack of quality...

Staying quiet and hope it will improve with time, doesn't help -- issues 
should be FIXED!
IMHO, this is the difference between a real network and a toy network.


> For "peer to peer" many times I have better connectivity with end-to-end
> IPv6 (6to4, Teredo), instead of using some intermediate servers with IPv4
> (assuming the usual situation where you are behind a NAT).

Sure, if the NAT boxes are weighting a lot on your network's performance, 
and you can find a 6to4/teredo relay near you (in terms of latency).


> Even if that's not the case, I will usually prefer a slightly slower path if
> it allows me end-to-end.

i.e. overlayed end-to-end :-)

You should also take a look about "how slower is it?"

Kicking your transit provider's butt to provide native v6 should also be on your 
priority list, right? (or change provider).

I'm also a strong defender of placing one's wallet ahead of one's mouth! 
:-)


> Regards,
> Jordi

Cheers,

./Carlos
--------------

          Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  http://www.fccn.pt

  "Internet is just routes (184902/571), naming (millions) and... people!"