On killing IPv6 transition mechanisms

Tore Anderson tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Tue Mar 16 10:51:48 CET 2010

* Gert Doering

> So I'd like to see these 150ms qualified - in this discussion, it
> seems to be the assumption that "IPv6 will *always* be 150ms slower",
> which is most definitely not the case.

I did not mean to imply that IPv6 is inherently higher-latency than
IPv4.  I have not done any latency measurements myself, quite simply
because my Apache logs timestamps have only second-precision.  The 150ms
figure comes from what I understand Google to have measured the average
additional IPv6 latency to be for their users.

I have no problems believing that latency with IPv6 will be on average
higher than with IPv4 - there's fewer peering interconnections and stuff
like 6to4 and Teredo will glady trampoline your packets off Timbuktu.
If it's exactly 150ms, more, or less, for your users,  I have no idea.
I think that for mine it might be somewhat lower, but certainly not
approaching the IPv4 standard.

I suspect that the networks that have significantly better IPv6
connectivity than IPv4 is few and far between - most of the time IPv6
will be on par with, or worse than, IPv4.  Improved latency is most
certainly not a pro-IPv6 argument at this point.

Best regards,
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Tel: +47 21 54 41 27

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list