3 ms·

We are still talking a fraction of a millisecond, a few hundred microseconds at most. People are blowing out of proportion latency saved with v6, it's negligibl

We are still talking a fraction of a millisecond, a few hundred microseconds at most. People are blowing out of proportion latency saved with v6, it's negligible at best, or at worst let's not forget IPv6 is two separate island because two tier-1 carriers refuse to peer (Cogent & HE).

Dagger2 4mo ago
Google's stats claim that it's 10-20ms for many countries, for example both the US and Canada show the latency impact of v6 as being -10ms. This is per round trip too -- between the connection handshake, congestion window slow-start and serialized requests it adds up to something significantly bigger than a few hundred microseconds. > let's not forget IPv6 is two separate island because two tier-1 carriers refuse to peer (Cogent & HE). The Cogent island must be very small, because I'm single-homed on HE and had actually forgotten about that. Or perhaps v6 isn't split into two separate islands after all, and this is just yet another weird claim people make about v6 that doesn't match reality.
HDBaseT 4mo ago
Latency wise, I am not noticing any difference (at least in ICMP). ycombinator@Mainframe:~$ ping 8.8.8.8 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=24.3 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=119 time=24.1 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=119 time=23.9 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=119 time=23.9 ms ^C --------------- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics -------------------- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 23.901/24.053/24.291/0.157 ms ycombinator@Mainframe:~$ ping6 2001:4860:4860::8844 PING 2001:4860:4860::8844 (2001:4860:4860::8844) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=1 ttl=118 time=23.5 ms 64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=2 ttl=118 time=24.0 ms 64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=3 ttl=118 time=23.9 ms 64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=4 ttl=118 time=24.0 ms ^C ------- 2001:4860:4860::8844 ping statistics ------------------- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3005ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 23.517/23.845/24.008/0.200 ms
- Hendrikto 4mo ago
  There is no inherent added latency. That only applies for the translation layer, when there is no native support.
  - commandersaki 4mo ago
    OP was making the case that CGNAT adds to the latency in some significant way. Yes it adds latency, but it is of negligible concern.

Dagger2 4mo ago

Google's stats claim that it's 10-20ms for many countries, for example both the US and Canada show the latency impact of v6 as being -10ms. This is per round trip too -- between the connection handshake, congestion window slow-start and serialized requests it adds up to something significantly bigger than a few hundred microseconds. > let's not forget IPv6 is two separate island because two tier-1 carriers refuse to peer (Cogent & HE). The Cogent island must be very small, because I'm single-homed on HE and had actually forgotten about that. Or perhaps v6 isn't split into two separate islands after all, and this is just yet another weird claim people make about v6 that doesn't match reality.

HDBaseT 4mo ago

Latency wise, I am not noticing any difference (at least in ICMP). ycombinator@Mainframe:~$ ping 8.8.8.8 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=24.3 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=119 time=24.1 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=119 time=23.9 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=119 time=23.9 ms ^C --------------- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics -------------------- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 23.901/24.053/24.291/0.157 ms ycombinator@Mainframe:~$ ping6 2001:4860:4860::8844 PING 2001:4860:4860::8844 (2001:4860:4860::8844) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=1 ttl=118 time=23.5 ms 64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=2 ttl=118 time=24.0 ms 64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=3 ttl=118 time=23.9 ms 64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=4 ttl=118 time=24.0 ms ^C ------- 2001:4860:4860::8844 ping statistics ------------------- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3005ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 23.517/23.845/24.008/0.200 ms

Hendrikto 4mo ago
There is no inherent added latency. That only applies for the translation layer, when there is no native support.
- commandersaki 4mo ago
  OP was making the case that CGNAT adds to the latency in some significant way. Yes it adds latency, but it is of negligible concern.