4 ms·

Because there is no benefit to running IPV6 if you have access to an IPV4 address.

eeZi 11y ago
There actually is. An increasing number of ISPs is going IPv6-only with central carrier-grade NAT for IPv4. Those gateways are often overloaded, resulting in vastly better performance over IPv6.
- daveguy 11y ago
  Except this study shows no difference in performance, but a 9x higher failure rate to establish an ipv6 connection.
  - mutemule 11y ago
    The study did a good job breaking down the different IPv6 connectivity types, but didn't discuss different IPv4 connections. GP is comparing native IPv6 to IPv4 CGNAT, but the study seems to be comparing differing forms of IPv6 to native IPv4.
- lisivka 11y ago
  IPv6 traffic is much slower. In my case (I use Miredo client), link to Portsmouth, ServerHouse, GB is up to 30Mbit by IPv4 but no more than 1Mbit by IPv6.
  - eeZi 11y ago
    You have native IPv4 and IPv6 over a tunnel, so of course IPv6 is going to be slower. The point is that for an increasing number of users, it's the exact opposite.
scurvy 11y ago
NAT v4 addresses are no fun. IPv6 addressing is a big win there. Especially in the mobile space.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
  > NAT v4 addresses are no fun. Everybody runs behind a NAT anyways, most systems work just find with multiple layers of NATs. I have been running an internal double NAT for months and the only reason I removed one layer from my onion was that back to mac fails badly with multiple layers of NATs.
  - scurvy 11y ago
    No, not everyone runs behind a NAT system. Ever been to a university where everyone gets an non-RFC1918 IPv4 address? That's how IPv6 is. When I worked at Microsoft, everyone had a routed address on their workstations, too. As you just admitted, NAT breaks things. Double NAT and CGN breaks a lot more. What about people who have no choice or no say in whether or not their Internet is NAT'd? There are ISP's where customers don't get routed IPv4 addresses. They get RFC1918 addresses and lots of double NAT'ing occurs. It's a bad scene.
    - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
      > No, not everyone runs behind a NAT system. Ever been to a university where everyone gets an non-RFC1918 IPv4 address? That's how IPv6 is. When I worked at Microsoft, everyone had a routed address on their workstations, too. Every normal customer is, every normal business is. Old institutions do not count because they are in a privileged position nobody else on the web is. > As you just admitted, NAT breaks things. And we learned to deal with it for many, many years. For many of us, a NAT is considered a feature not a bug in fact. When I run a server I already have to assume that clients are NATed and as such I design my system to work that way. IPV6 only is a non existing part of the internet and as such not really something to optimize for. I get absolutely nothing currently by enabling IPV6 on my server because I cannot depend on it.
      - dasil003 11y ago
        So your position is that we should just keep piling hacks upon hacks even though there is viable alternative that will drastically simplify a great many things for the foreseeable future?
scurvy 11y ago
Facebook says that IPv6 is faster and clients stay on their site longer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s

eeZi 11y ago

There actually is. An increasing number of ISPs is going IPv6-only with central carrier-grade NAT for IPv4. Those gateways are often overloaded, resulting in vastly better performance over IPv6.

daveguy 11y ago
Except this study shows no difference in performance, but a 9x higher failure rate to establish an ipv6 connection.
- mutemule 11y ago
  The study did a good job breaking down the different IPv6 connectivity types, but didn't discuss different IPv4 connections. GP is comparing native IPv6 to IPv4 CGNAT, but the study seems to be comparing differing forms of IPv6 to native IPv4.
lisivka 11y ago
IPv6 traffic is much slower. In my case (I use Miredo client), link to Portsmouth, ServerHouse, GB is up to 30Mbit by IPv4 but no more than 1Mbit by IPv6.
- eeZi 11y ago
  You have native IPv4 and IPv6 over a tunnel, so of course IPv6 is going to be slower. The point is that for an increasing number of users, it's the exact opposite.

scurvy 11y ago

NAT v4 addresses are no fun. IPv6 addressing is a big win there. Especially in the mobile space.

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
> NAT v4 addresses are no fun. Everybody runs behind a NAT anyways, most systems work just find with multiple layers of NATs. I have been running an internal double NAT for months and the only reason I removed one layer from my onion was that back to mac fails badly with multiple layers of NATs.
- scurvy 11y ago
  No, not everyone runs behind a NAT system. Ever been to a university where everyone gets an non-RFC1918 IPv4 address? That's how IPv6 is. When I worked at Microsoft, everyone had a routed address on their workstations, too. As you just admitted, NAT breaks things. Double NAT and CGN breaks a lot more. What about people who have no choice or no say in whether or not their Internet is NAT'd? There are ISP's where customers don't get routed IPv4 addresses. They get RFC1918 addresses and lots of double NAT'ing occurs. It's a bad scene.
  - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
    > No, not everyone runs behind a NAT system. Ever been to a university where everyone gets an non-RFC1918 IPv4 address? That's how IPv6 is. When I worked at Microsoft, everyone had a routed address on their workstations, too. Every normal customer is, every normal business is. Old institutions do not count because they are in a privileged position nobody else on the web is. > As you just admitted, NAT breaks things. And we learned to deal with it for many, many years. For many of us, a NAT is considered a feature not a bug in fact. When I run a server I already have to assume that clients are NATed and as such I design my system to work that way. IPV6 only is a non existing part of the internet and as such not really something to optimize for. I get absolutely nothing currently by enabling IPV6 on my server because I cannot depend on it.
    - dasil003 11y ago
      So your position is that we should just keep piling hacks upon hacks even though there is viable alternative that will drastically simplify a great many things for the foreseeable future?

scurvy 11y ago

Facebook says that IPv6 is faster and clients stay on their site longer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s