4 ms·
Your subject says "is it costing me users?", but your message says "how many people will be unable to access the site?". These are two different things. If yo
by Dagger2 3y ago
Your subject says "is it costing me users?", but your message says "how many people will be unable to access the site?".
These are two different things.
If your site is slow, it will cost you users. v6 has measurably better performance for websites, so not having it will cost you users. Those users will still be able to access your site though, they'll just choose not to because it's too slow for them.
The practical reality is that almost all client devices that are used for browsing the web will have some mechanism to reach legacy v4-only websites (but the mechanism might itself be a cause of poor performance...).
On the server side, v6-only servers (VPSs/containers/etc) are getting somewhat more common though, so if you're hosting something that's expected to be downloaded directly onto a server then please figure out v6 somehow.
- 0xNOTVALID 3y agoCan you support your statement that IPv6 has measurably better performance for websites?
- p1mrx 3y agoThis was claimed by Facebook in 2015: https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2015/04/facebook-news-feeds-load-20-40-faster-over-ipv6/ https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2015/04/facebook-news-f...
- Dagger2 3y agoApple also made a claim that v6 connection setup is 40% faster: https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-tells-app-devs-to-use-ipv6-as-its-1-4-times-faster-than-ipv4/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-tells-app-devs-to-use-ip... (Not 1.4x faster overall, as you might think from the headline...)