Tunnel overhead [On killing IPv6 transition mechanisms]
tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Mar 17 19:55:46 CET 2010
I am pretty sure I recall reading that the larger routers have the
ability to lower priority of ICMP echo replies and that most of them
do. Have you confirmed these ping numbers agree with traceroutes,
particularly ones NOT using standard trace protocols?
Also, one point on Tore Andersons comment that I'm not going to let
"...Network latency is without question on that list....additional
client-server latency due to IPv6 being used will quickly add
up to seconds in terms of overall page load time for a complex web site..."
That is factually incorrect. TCP/IP uses sliding windows. As long
as the overall latency falls within the window setting, (and 150ms
definitely does) then the IP transmission WILL NOT fall back into
the "send-a-pack-wait-for-an-ack" mode and bandwidth will NOT be
affected, thus it does not result in any increase in page load
delay for larger pages.
In any case, content providers are idiots if they don't understand
that complex web pages take longer to render in the web browser than
simpler pages. There is a reason that Ebay, Craigslist, Google, etc.
use text-output for their browse listings - they aren't run by
idiots. That's why I don't use bing.com for example, and never will.
Stig Venaas wrote:
> Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>> Ping ietf with Ttl=66 waouw, I have never seen this value! I wonder
>> which was the hop limit value at ietf web site :-)
> Almost certainly 128 I would say. But I'm getting 68 for IPv4 and I am
> 15 hops away (if IPv4 path is symmetric). But I've never heard of any OS
> using 83 or whatever for initial TTL. AFAIK there are OSes using 64 and
> 128, but I'm not aware of any in between.
More information about the ipv6-ops