[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap


--- cb.list6 at gmail.com wrote:
From: Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com>

> Meanwhile, FB reports that 75% of mobiles in the USA 
> reach them via ipv6
>
> And Akaimai reports 80% of mobiles

And they both report ipv6 is faster / better.
----------------------------------------


Hmm...  Faster and better?  

The links seem to be an IPv6 cheerleader write up.  
I looked at the URLs and the URLs one pointed to and 
pulled out everything related to IPv6 being 
faster/better.


Akamai URL:

"For dual-stacked hostnames we typically see higher 
average estimated throughput over IPv6 than over IPv4. 
Some of this may be due to IPv6-connected users being 
correlated with better connectivity, but over half of 
dual-stacked hostnames (weighted by daily bytes 
delivered) have IPv6 estimated throughput at least 50% 
faster than IPv4, and 90% of these hostnames have the 
IPv6 estimated throughput at least 10% faster than 
IPv4."



FB URL:

"People using Facebook services typically see better 
performance over IPv6..."

and it points to 
https://code.facebook.com/posts/1192894270727351/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board
which says:

"Weâ??ve long been anticipating the exhaustion of IPv
in favor of the speed and performance benefits of 
IPv6."

"Weâ??ve observed that accessing Facebook can be 10-15 
percent faster over IPv6."


I'd sure like to see how they came up with these 
numbers in a technically oriented paper.  There 
should be no difference, except for no CGN or Happy 
Eyeballs working better or something similar.  Am I 
missing something?  Same routers; same links; same 
RTTs; same interrupt times on servers; same etc, etc 
for both protocols.

scott