Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

pansift.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#61

Post by fach »

teleforce wrote: post #60
robjs wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what this means. This was not a defence of MPLS, but rather an observation that says that the fundamental domains and business logic around externally-selected TE paths do not change because we change what header instructs the network to steer packets. It's still not going to make sense to have external users try and use the "premium" paths in the network without some recompense to keep scaling the…

Let's us step back and look into the current mess of the existing IP networks with all the duct tapes involved (looking at you NAT). Any QoS that the end users probably want is only make dollar sense for the big companies that's why we have the fine print of best-effort services written in almost all the Telcos' EULA. What IPv6 based technology for example SRv6 is doing is trying to democratize QoS so that it's hopef…

Can we not step back and instead address the practical implementation challenges robjs raised?

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#62

Post by teleforce »

fach wrote: post #57
teleforce wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sheesh, it take real guts to dismiss a book written by engineers who themselves directly involved in coming up with open industry networking standards, and currently working with arguably the biggest networking and communication company in the world. This take the idiom of "judge a book by its cover" to a whole new level.

There has been a long history of Huawei stealing IP as well as generating less than useful drafts/standards in the IETF. There are very real reasons to judge this book by its cover.

Sorry to be blunt, but there is a real reason the idiom existed for several hundred years. Perhaps you should read the book so we can have more civilized discussions?

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#63

Post by irldexter »

toast0 wrote: post #48

This test is pretty flawed: > IPv4 requests went first, then IPv6, and we recorded the average latency of the 3 requests as the resulting data point (using a float value in milliseconds). On wifi, the IPv4 requests are going to wake up your radio, and then the latency is going to be better for the IPv6. On wired, there's very little difference, since there's no radio wakeup delay. Pinging your default gateway isn't m…

This is great feedback thanks and a very interesting point. Most laptops these days are constantly chatting towards the Internet, just have a look at wireshark! But, the local LAN tests are preceded by IPv4 and IPv6 Internet reachability tests (which the article mentions regarding only taking results from hosts that were concurrently online with dualstack lighthouse reachability. This test suite takes about 7 seconds total and records about 25-30 data points). If we re-run the test we could indeed let IPv6 go first or do them in parallel to account for any sleeping radios.

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#64

Post by zamalek »

throw0101a wrote: post #44
Majestic121 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To have some data : https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html While progress is slow, it is constant and we're reaching 40% of IPv6 availability in 2022, from pretty much 0% in 2010. I'm confident we'll get there.

> While progress is slow, it is constant and we're reaching 40% of IPv6 availability in 2022, from pretty much 0% in 2010. I always find it amusing that IPv6 usage peaks on weekends. Seems home and mobile users have better IPv6 connectivity than corporate users.

I have been using IPv6 for years on my mobile plan, so anecdata supports your hypothesis.

But it's not only corporate. IPv6 only lit up at home (Verizon Fios) for me maybe 1 month ago. There are also likely very few people with RA enabled, even if their infrastructure supports it.

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#65

Post by Genbox »

neilalexander wrote: post #2

In many ways, IPv6 stacks are simpler than their IPv4 counterparts. The fixed packet headers are simpler and faster to parse, ICMPv6 includes both router and neighbour solicitation (as opposed to being separate protocols like ARP in IPv4), routers generally won’t fragment large packets in transit (instead giving way to Path MTU Discovery) and NAT is not so widely needed as it is in IPv4. That said, the fixed packet h…

> NAT is not so widely needed as it is in IPv4.

If every device had a globally unique address, is there really a need for NAT?

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#66

Post by mugsie »

bombcar wrote: post #54
rr888 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the cloud provider VPCs seem inextriciably linked to IP4 config, which seems to work great. Maybe the low level infrastructure is IP6, but we dont operate at that level.

I'm starting to think the cloud providers are hoarding IPv4 addresses and see them as an asset, and don't want to "rock the boat".

starting? :) - definitely are. It is also a chicken and an egg problem - until people start shouting they won't implement v6, and people won't want it until there is a reason too (like not getting v4 addresses - which cloud providers solve by just NATing the world)

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#68

Post by rescbr »

Genbox wrote: post #65
neilalexander wrote: post #2

In many ways, IPv6 stacks are simpler than their IPv4 counterparts. The fixed packet headers are simpler and faster to parse, ICMPv6 includes both router and neighbour solicitation (as opposed to being separate protocols like ARP in IPv4), routers generally won’t fragment large packets in transit (instead giving way to Path MTU Discovery) and NAT is not so widely needed as it is in IPv4. That said, the fixed packet h…

> NAT is not so widely needed as it is in IPv4. If every device had a globally unique address, is there really a need for NAT?

Yes, because not every entity is an ASN with their own allocation, nor their ISPs will announce their addresses on a residential service, for instance.

I have to resort to NPTv6 in my setup, as my ISP allocates IPv6 prefixes dynamically, breaking down IPv6 routing when they have some issue and drop/change the prefixes previously allocated to me.

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#69

Post by lightweb »

lightweb wrote: post #43
lightweb wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think on solving BGP vulnerabilities through micropayments.

Originally, Bitcoin had no limits in place including the block size. That was added later. The original protocol scales to trillions of transactions per second. The secret is the Merkle tree and the block header. The block headers only take up megabytes and are easy to keep track of and distribute. Simplified Payment Verification was outlined in the whitepaper. The protocol is meant to be used between peers, not betw…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j0yESuI96c

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#70

Post by Tepix »

capitol_ wrote: post #41
crims0n wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original RFC came out in 1995, the modern RFC used today in 1998 - almost 25 years ago. When I was in college in 2012 (going through the Cisco NetAcad) they were preaching that our IPv6 future was "just around the corner". I am going on 10 years in network and security now, and I still don't see it. At least in the US, IPv4 is, and will remain, the dominant force. There are many reasons for this, but one of the b…

As of I'm writing this google sees 50.03% of its traffic on v6. According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html Maybe dominant is the wrong word, large might be better.

It says 36.89% here. Weird.
Post reply on HN