Production-scale NAT64

Thu Aug 27 12:59:55 UTC 2015

> On 26 Aug 2015, at 15:23 , Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:16 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks at 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.

The question I have not seen the answer yet to is “why?”

Is this really because of the network, e.g., separate pipes in some places still, with forwarding devices handling a lot less pps?

Is it because of people having done a newer cleaner-cut network stack implementation and lately cared about its performance?

Is it about middle nodes?

Has anyone done the research on this?