IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap

Sat Jun 23 16:27:35 UTC 2018

 From an Apple device point of view, ipv6 should be faster than ipv4 
where both are available.

Because, Apple adds a 25 ms artifical penalty to ipv4 dns resolution.

https://ma.ttias.be/apple-favours-ipv6-gives-ipv4-a-25ms-penalty/

So if you test facebook from a Mac/iPhone/iPad, it will definitely loads 
faster over ipv6

On 06/19/2018 08:32 PM, lobna gouda wrote:
> Although  the FB link is vague but argument itself is true. We  just became more intelligent in deploying IPV6.  The same measurement if was done in less  than a decade  for example would show that ipv4 is faster.  The dual stack implementation and the slowness introduced by Teredo Tunneling  were the main reasons and  now we are getting smarter having it deprecating
>
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/examining-ipv6-performance
>
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6555
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7526
> Things change, Ipv6  response is showing better has IPV4 is having more TCP re-transmission which the culprit is still not known ( need more analysis)  but fingers are pointing to the exhaustion of the ipv4 address so basically  CGN , load-balancers and address sharing.  Although  we can not eliminate peering links and Firewalls. Yet if we have exactly the same topology  and traffic crossing the links et Firewalls locations/policies. Analysis didnot confirm why it would have rather more harm on ipv4 than 6
>
>   Brgds,
>
> LG
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> on behalf of Lee Howard <lee.howard at retevia.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 7:46 AM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap
>
>
>
> On 06/11/2018 05:16 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>> --- cb.list6 at gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com>
>>
>>> Meanwhile, FB reports that 75% of mobiles in the USA
>>> reach them via ipv6
>>>
>>> And Akaimai reports 80% of mobiles
>> And they both report ipv6 is faster / better.
>> ----------------------------------------
> Let me grab a few more for you:
>
> https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why-and-how.html
> Preparing for IPv6-only mobile networks: Why and How - The ...<https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why-and-how.html>
> blogs.akamai.com
> Apple's upcoming App Store submission requirement around supporting IPv6-only environments (announced last year at WWDC and being enforced starting June 1) has been getting plenty of recent coverage. iOS application developers already need to make sure their applications work in...
>
>
>
>
>
> https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/10/ipv6-at-akamai-edge-2016.html
>
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/28/ipv6_now_faster_a_fifth_of_the_time
> which cites an academic paper
> http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2959424.2959429 by Vaibhav Bajpai
> and Jürgen Schönwälder
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ipv6-measurements-zaid-ali-kahn/
>
> https://community.infoblox.com/t5/IPv6-CoE-Blog/Can-IPv6-Rally-Be-Faster-than-IPv4-Part-1/ba-p/6419
>
>
> https://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2281
>
>> I'd sure like to see how they came up with these
>> numbers in a technically oriented paper.
> Most of the above links explain how they got the numbers.
> Facebook, in particular, did A/B testing using Mobile Proxygen, which is
> to say that they configured their mobile app to report performance over
> both IPv4 and IPv6 from the same handset at the same time.
> Others, including APNIC's https://stats.labs.apnic.net/v6perf have a
> browser fetch two objects with unique URLs, one from an IPv4-only server
> and one from an IPv6-only server, and compare them.
>
>
>
>>    There
>> should be no difference, except for no CGN or Happy
>> Eyeballs working better or something similar.  Am I
>> missing something?  Same routers; same links; same
>> RTTs; same interrupt times on servers; same etc, etc
>> for both protocols.
>   From time to time somebody says, "Okay, maybe it works in practice, but
> does it work in *theory*?"
>
> Busy engineers hardly ever investigate things going inexplicably right.
>
> My hypothesis is that the observed difference in performance relates to
> how mobile networks deploy their transition mechanisms. Those with a
> dual-stack APN take a native path for IPv6, while using a CGN path for
> IPv4, which, combined with the Happy Eyeballs head start, might add
> 501microseconds, which is a ms, which is 15% of 7ms. Those with an
> IPv6-only APN use a native path for IPv6, while using either a NAT64 for
> IPv4 (identical performance to CGN) or 464xlat, which requires
> translation both in the handset and the NAT64; handsets may not be
> optimized for header translation.
>
> However, I have a dozen other hypotheses, and the few experiments I've
> been able to run have not confirmed any hypothesis. For instance, when
> one protocol is faster than another on a landline network, hop count is
> not a correlation (therefore, shorter paths, traffic engineering, etc.,
> are not involved).
>
> Lee
>
>> Hmm...  Faster and better?
>>
>> The links seem to be an IPv6 cheerleader write up.
>> I looked at the URLs and the URLs one pointed to and
>> pulled out everything related to IPv6 being
>> faster/better.
>>
>>
>> Akamai URL:
>>
>> "For dual-stacked hostnames we typically see higher
>> average estimated throughput over IPv6 than over IPv4.
>> Some of this may be due to IPv6-connected users being
>> correlated with better connectivity, but over half of
>> dual-stacked hostnames (weighted by daily bytes
>> delivered) have IPv6 estimated throughput at least 50%
>> faster than IPv4, and 90% of these hostnames have the
>> IPv6 estimated throughput at least 10% faster than
>> IPv4."
>>
>>
>>
>> FB URL:
>>
>> "People using Facebook services typically see better
>> performance over IPv6..."
>>
>> and it points to
>> https://code.facebook.com/posts/1192894270727351/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board
>> which says:
>>
>> "We’ve long been anticipating the exhaustion of IPv
>> in favor of the speed and performance benefits of
>> IPv6."
>>
>> "We’ve observed that accessing Facebook can be 10-15
>> percent faster over IPv6."
>>
>>
>> I'd sure like to see how they came up with these
>> numbers in a technically oriented paper.  There
>> should be no difference, except for no CGN or Happy
>> Eyeballs working better or something similar.  Am I
>> missing something?  Same routers; same links; same
>> RTTs; same interrupt times on servers; same etc, etc
>> for both protocols.
>>
>> scott