[183296] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Production-scale NAT64
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Wed Aug 26 11:26:01 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <63682.1440602171@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:23:45 -0700
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:16 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:28:08 -0700, Ca By said:
>
> > Another relevant metric, less than 25% of my mobile subscribers traffic
> > require NAT64 translating. 75+% of bits flows through end-to-end IPv6
> > (thanks Google/Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, Linkedin and so on
> ...).
>
> So I'm guessing that 75% of the traffic flows with better latency than
> the 25% IPvhorse-n-buggy traffic? ;)
>
>
Facebook says IPv6 is 20-40% faster
http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2015/04/facebook-news-feeds-load-20-40-faster-over-ipv6/
Another way to look at it, IPv4 is 20-40% slower than IPv6.
