[108616] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Wow
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Mon Oct 13 02:24:27 2008
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:24:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <200810130246.m9D2kt79010996@parsley.amaranth.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008, Daniel Senie wrote:
> I do wonder whether where the Vista machines on public IPs really are. I
> also have to wonder if performance is really better when those users are
> routed over 6to4 in Europe from, say California, or whether they'd
> actually get better performance if they stuck in a NAT box, resulting in
> their using IPv4 instead?
I'd say it's very rare where IPv6 will give you better performance than
IPv4 right now.
Regarding where they are, I'd say all over the place. It's very common in
my regional market to hand out one or more public IPs, and if the customer
doesn't put their own NAT box there, then their Vista computer(s) will
have public IPs and will use 6to4.
Regarding 6to4 or Teredo, I've done some testing of my own and the
statelessness of 6to4 makes it avoid some of the session setup/NAT
travesal magic of Teredo that slows Teredo down. I'd much rather see the
NAT boxes do 6to4 and run native on their local LAN segment, than having
end hosts do Teredo to get thru the NAT. It'll give the end user a better
IPv6 experience.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
