[189566] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Corbe)
Thu Jun 2 12:23:28 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Daniel Corbe <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGS3htypCyVHELor7ZsjR-379qg=hm-bwk4gxg+B8TbJhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:23:13 -0400
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> Just a thought - ipv4 includes older more rural connections such as =
1M DSL
>> out in the sticks. That weighs the average connection time down. v6 =
being
>> capable on modern 4G wireless and fiber connections makes the average
>> faster.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
> Akamai, linkedin, and facebook are not lightweights when it comes to =
data
> analysis. Meaning, they know about selection basis. I'll also =
mention
> that google has v6 as well.
>=20
> FTFA, Akamai states they isolated dual-stack iphones on vzw and ran
> parallel RUM v4 and v6 tests. I believe FB did the same thing and
> presented the data at nanog 64
>=20
> CB
>=20
Just an ancillary thought.
Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if =
objectively that isn=E2=80=99t true. Perhaps that will help speed along =
the adoption process.
