> In the world I live in, my ISP was among the very first here to > deploy native IPv6 on DSL *years* ago and is actively seeking IPv6 > peering opportunities with as many networks as possible.
That is great. Do they artificially slow down IPv4 in order to ensure that IPv6 is faster? > IPv6 connections here are usually as fast if not faster than IPv4 > connections. Maybe within their network, but I don't believe this for global connectivity. Periodically measure sustained bandwidth and latency to a distant host at another IPv6-loving ISP, say ftp.ie.debian.org, over both IPv4 and IPv6. That would be a best case scenario. You will not find IPv6 to be faster or more reliable than IPv4. > I suggest you fix your world ... That is silly. It will be extremely rare for IPv6 to be *faster* or *more reliable* than IPv4, for quite a while. This is because ISPs have these things called "customers" who want to access this thing called "The Internet" by which them mean connecting to hosts like $ for h in www.comedycentral.com www.cnn.com slashdot.org www.ietf.org \ www.google.com www.mit.edu www.yale.edu www.cs.cmu.edu \ www.whitehouse.gov www.army.mil; do for p in a aaaa; do host -t $p $h | egrep address | head -1 done done a1481.b.akamai.net.2b55293e.1.cn.akamaitech.net has address 184.108.40.206 www.cnn.com has address 220.127.116.11 slashdot.org has address 18.104.22.168 www.ietf.org has address 22.214.171.124 www.ietf.org has IPv6 address 2001:1890:1112:1::20 www.l.google.com has address 126.96.36.199 www.mit.edu has address 188.8.131.52 elsinore.cis.yale.edu has address 184.108.40.206 MICHELANGELO.SRV.cs.cmu.edu has address 220.127.116.11 e2561.b.akamaiedge.net has address 18.104.22.168 www1.ahp.us.army.mil has address 22.214.171.124 As you can see, popular server do not provide IPv6 access. Even the rare host that does also provides IPv4 that is at least as performant. ISPs must therefore make it their first priority to make IPv4 fast & reliable. Whining at them won't help. What *would* help would be taking technical measures that allow ISPs to field IPv6 without breaking things that already work. And wouldn't it be great if those very same technical measures would also allow servers like those above to advertise an IPv6 address without endangering performance in communicating with IPv6-enabled clients? Then hosts could advertise IPv6 addresses without risk of breaking things that already work. If that were the case, perhaps they would. Then we would have a viable path to an actual transition. --Barak. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org