IPv6 traffic data in Asian networks?

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

I don't agree, I get almost same RTT to IETF with IPv6 than IPv4, just a
couple of milliseconds difference/average.

I think when you have this problem with many sites, it may be a problem at
your side, not the content providers side ?

Also don't agree about your statement for favoring IPv4, it depends on the
OS policy table and/or the applications when they ignore it. I've looked at
this in many scenarios, and is not like that. For example Opera in windows
prefers Teredo if no other IPv6 connectivity is available, even if IPv4 is
available.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis at simphalempin.com>
> Organización: Remlab.net
> Responder a: <ipv6-ops-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es at lists.cluenet.de>
> Fecha: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:26:05 +0200
> Para: <ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de>
> CC: Kevin Loch <kloch at kl.net>
> Asunto: Re: IPv6 traffic data in Asian networks?
> 
> On Thursday 22 March 2007 18:05:35 Kevin Loch wrote:
>> With the exception of the ARIN website itself,
> 
> www.ietf.org has pretty bad reachability too.
> 
> On the backbone sides, I have seen problems with TeliaSonera
> 
> And then, on the client side, I cannot say FranceTelecom DSL native IPv6
> service was very stable.
> 
> And that's for those I have been trying to use.
> 
>> I have not seen "much
>> more" transient reachability problems on IPv6.  I have seen IPv6 enabled
>> on commercial websites without any problems.  I'm not saying
>> it's perfect but it's alot better than "NO NO NO".
> 
> It will definitely cause problems to some users, adds extra cost (HW/SW
> updates, maintenance). And it does not bring any advantage to the other ones,
> because HTTP works fine with NATs and proxies.
> 
> I am a bit bored with the "If only Google advertised IPv6 on their websites"
> statements that show up every now and then, every here and there. *HTTP* is
> simply NOT a good use-case for switching to IPv6 at the moment. Or well,
> IPv6-only may make sense if you cannot afford an IPv4 address, but dual-stack
> HTTP server really looks useless to me from a business perspective.
> 
> Fortunately, there are other application-layer protocols where IPv6 makes a
> lot more sense.
> 
>> As for transition mechanisms, sites will find that having their own
>> local 6to4 and teredo relays will help alot.
> 
> If you do RFC3484, I think it does not matter, IPv4 will be favored over
> 6to4<->native or Teredo<->native connections. They really only matter if you
> do not have IPv4 at all on one side (or if the client is legacy non-RFC3484).
> 
> -- 
> Rémi Denis-Courmont




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.