OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

Tue Jul 12 17:52:48 UTC 2005

On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:46:53PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> It's getting better all the time, but there are still strange bugs in  
> the applications, OSes and even the standards. IPv6 works very well  
> for many things but not so well for others. Fortunately, there is  
> still plenty of time to work out all the kinks before we need IPv6 to  
> step up to the plate. In the mean time, we need SOME IPv6 so that the  
> early adopters can find those kinks, and that part is right on track.

How are people making the case for IPv6 with popular applications like
voice?

With G.711 and 20ms voice samples, with IPv4 you get:

20 bytes IP + 8 bytes UDP + 12 bytes RTP + 160 bytes payload
20% overhead.

Now with IPv6. Say we use shim6 or something like that to implement
multihoming too. The shim6 header isn't decided yet, but I suppose it's
got to contain at least a pair of addresses (32 bytes).

40 bytes IP + 32 bytes shim6 8 bytes UDP + 12 bytes RTP +
160 bytes payload
36.5% overhead

Almost twice as much overhead is a much tougher pill to swallow. I would
try to stay with IPv4 as long as I could. Even without adding shim6
into the picture you're taking a significant penalty.

-Phil