spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

Truman Boyes truman at suspicious.org
Thu Oct 16 12:03:18 CDT 2008


It's a good point that you brought up.

Even though we already have IPv6 P2P (Nathan's post explains this in  
more detail), it would still be quite interesting to provide IPv6 as a  
higher class of traffic within service provider networks.

Quite likely 6to4 relays and native IPv6 traffic is best effort today  
(ie. the same as IPv4 inet). I think operators would need to consider  
the financial implications of placing this traffic ahead of their  
current revenue generating services. Possibly instead of prioritizing  
the traffic, if the ISPs that normally police traffic from CE's could  
provide a higher policed rate for IPv6 traffic, so the experience is  
significantly different even in times where there is no congestion.


Truman


On 14/10/2008, at 3:49 PM, Scott Doty wrote:

> We've had one presentation on the "unfairness" of p2p traffic, which
> (the presenter says) will eventually swamp us.
>
> Then just now, we had the presentation & subsequent discussion re:  
> ipv6
> adoption.
>
> Just wondering:  what if we gave ipv6 traffic "mucho priority" over  
> ipv4
> traffic, then tell our user communities that ipv6 provides a better
> quality network experience, including (hopefully) faster page loads, &
> lower video game pings?
>
> With such policies in place, folks wouldn't want to stay with the  
> "old,
> slow" v4 traffic...and could be a significant selling point.
>
> After all, if most p2p traffic is v4, prioritizing ipv6 (as a  
> general concept) should improve the user experience.
>
> Anyway, was just an idea, please pardon me if this has been discussed
> before, or sounds nutty...
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Scott
>
>
>





More information about the NANOG mailing list