IPv6 is better than ipv4

Thu Jun 2 17:07:23 UTC 2016

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe <dcorbe at hammerfiber.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if
>>> objectively that isn’t true.  Perhaps that will help speed along the
>>> adoption process.
>>
>>
>> do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6
>> deployment on the slow-boat?
>>
>>
> YMMV, but the majority of my customers are ipv6. And for those customers
> with ipv6, 73% of their traffic is e2e IPv6.
>
>
I understand that tmo's (us at least) network is v6 native to the
handset... my question was really trying to point out that even if tmo is
100M customers, there are ~3x that on sprint/vz/att/etc ... so just in the
US is 25% repreesntative? and outside the US what does the mobile address
family spread look like?

then, what if the resource being accessed to by the mobile users in
zimbabwe are local to zimbabwe and there's only ipv4 versions of that
mobile service... the reasons to go v6 on both sides aren't as clear. (to
me)

> I agree that there are many dark corners of Santa Cruz without IPv6, but
> the story is: the whales of content and eyeballs are on IPv6, and it is
> cheaper (no cgn) and faster (RUM data) than the ipv4 alternative.
>
>
I get why things look better in the cases of FB/TMO (as one example)...
but selling 'you should ipv6 because FB/TMO is better!' isn't really true
all ways.

> Does it really matter what single digit % of Alexa 1M has a AAAA?
>

:) I have no idea...