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

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#81

Post by craftkiller »

adrianmonk wrote: post #78
nybble41 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure incompetence on the part of the ISP really translates into a need for NAT. It's a useful workaround, to be sure, but what you need here is an ISP that handles IPv6 prefixes properly. There is no reason for the prefix delegated to a customer to change, ever. They should just assign it statically when they create the account.

You might not have exactly one ISP. Imagine you use an RV as a nomadic home office. You have a small LAN with a private server (file server, HTTP server for testing web sites, etc.), and you want that server to have a static IP. Since you might be on RV park WiFi at one moment, cell data at another, etc., you can't use a static IP from an ISP. But you can use the IPv6 private address range, and then you need NAT. (Te…

> (Technically I guess you could do without NAT if you gave every host on your LAN two addresses: a private address and a publicly-routable one. But that might be more cumbersome.)

For any IPv6 setup, you already have multiple addresses per host. You start with your mandatory link-local unicast address from the `fe80::/10` range and then you add a global address after getting a prefix from your router. I don't see how adding a third address, particularly a static one, would be cumbersome.

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#82

Post by toast0 »

nybble41 wrote: post #72
rescbr wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure incompetence on the part of the ISP really translates into a need for NAT. It's a useful workaround, to be sure, but what you need here is an ISP that handles IPv6 prefixes properly. There is no reason for the prefix delegated to a customer to change, ever. They should just assign it statically when they create the account.

> but what you need here is an ISP that handles IPv6 prefixes properly

It's hard to get ISPs to do things properly in general; if it's for IPv6, it's even more difficult. I think the intent of IPv6 designers was for hosts to manage to be prefix fluid; you might set up ULAs for local traffic, and use whatever prefixes are advertised for non-local traffic. Of course, that's harder to do than to write an RFC about, so I can understand resorting to prefix translation to get things done in the way desired. Prefix translation has the potential to be stateless which is nice for resource management on the translation element, though.

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#83

Post by rb12345 »

Tepix wrote: post #70
capitol_ wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 50.03% is specifically US traffic; for global traffic, it's 36.89%.

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#84

Post by pmw »

rr888 wrote: post #27
viraptor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, while people keep saying that, ipv6 adoption only goes up every month. I'm having a hard time accepting "the ship has sailed" while my home outbound connections use ipv6 for more and more endpoints.

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.

AWS supports IPv6 on non-default VPCs: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/get-started...

I have a hobby project on AWS using it today, with multiple EC2 instances having IPv6 addresses. It works beautifully.

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#85

Post by nybble41 »

toast0 wrote: post #82
nybble41 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure incompetence on the part of the ISP really translates into a need for NAT. It's a useful workaround, to be sure, but what you need here is an ISP that handles IPv6 prefixes properly. There is no reason for the prefix delegated to a customer to change, ever. They should just assign it statically when they create the account.

> but what you need here is an ISP that handles IPv6 prefixes properly It's hard to get ISPs to do things properly in general; if it's for IPv6, it's even more difficult. I think the intent of IPv6 designers was for hosts to manage to be prefix fluid; you might set up ULAs for local traffic, and use whatever prefixes are advertised for non-local traffic. Of course, that's harder to do than to write an RFC about, so I…

> Prefix translation has the potential to be stateless which is nice for resource management on the translation element, though.

It really messes with protocols where you need to tell another host how to contact you, though, since you don't know your "real" IP address without asking some other server. This gets worse if there is more than one level of translation involved. You also need hacks like "hairpin NAT" (wastefully passing local traffic through the router) since local hosts trying to connect to the public IP of a local server don't realize that they can reach it directly via the ULA.

> … you might set up ULAs for local traffic, and use whatever prefixes are advertised for non-local traffic.

This is the way.

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#86

Post by karmanyaahm »

bombcar wrote: post #56
candiddevmike wrote: post #14

Anyone running v6 only and bridging to v4 on the edge?

Any details available on how to do this on a home network?

On a large commercial network, there's a distinct 'backbone' and self-controlled 'iot' and 'end users', and of the 3 only end users need v4. Compare that to a home environment where there's pretty much all devices need v4, and there aren't too complicated firewall rules going on, it makes less sense to split into a backbone and v6 only devices. Still, you could do it using something like DNS64 if you really wanted to.

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#87

Post by fomine3 »

virtuallynathan wrote: post #7

At Netflix, we found in quite a few networks IPv6 had much better QoE than IPv4. In a limited number of cases, IPv6 was very broken. It was almost always equal or better.

Does who (ISP and end user) enabled IPv6 tend to have good network equipment / end device?

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#89

Post by idatum »

OJFord wrote: post #18
idatum wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that feeling sometimes too. I think though it's not going to be so clear a winner as with your examples. We'll be living with both probably forever. Maybe an example for comparison is iPhone vs Android, or Windows vs Mac? We'll be living with both for a long time too.

More like BD vs. DVD - 'living with both for a long time' as you say, but also one is a clear successor.

Agree.

Re: Is IPv6 faster than IPv4?

#90

Post by snapplebobapple »

nybble41 wrote: post #72
rescbr wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure incompetence on the part of the ISP really translates into a need for NAT. It's a useful workaround, to be sure, but what you need here is an ISP that handles IPv6 prefixes properly. There is no reason for the prefix delegated to a customer to change, ever. They should just assign it statically when they create the account.

That sounds like a surveillance nightmare...
Post reply on HN