"Barak A. Pearlmutter" <ba...@cs.nuim.ie> wrote:


>> 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?

They actually peer with a high enough number of good IPv6 networks;
big telcos are beefing up IPv6-wise and some of them are even
deploying IPv6-only networks and peerings. That helps.

This kind of thing tends to work best when both sides know their
stuff. Here they do.

> connectivity.  Periodically measure sustained bandwidth and latency to
> a distant host at another IPv6-loving ISP, say ftp.ie.debian.org, over

While tracing ftp.ie.debian.org:
 6:  2001:450:2002:9f::1                      117.317ms asymm  7 
 7:  2001:450:2002:70::2                      1135.219ms asymm 10

Either that's a tunnel and they should get rid of it, or they need a
bigger pipe and a bigger router to handle the load. None of this is
caused by IPv6, it's just sucky networking.

> 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

As I wrote above, some v6-only networks are being built, and those
will be faster than their v4 counterpart right now due to a lower

>   www.l.google.com has address

% host -t AAAA www.l.google.com
www.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:a004::68

You should do your research better. Google is fully IPv6-enabled, and
it took only a ridicule amount of time to an undersized, part-time
team of Googlers to make it so.

> 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.

There is a transition path. It is being rolled out. It works.

It's actually easier to embrass IPv6 than it is to work against
it. Now if only people realized that.

I think you have no solid technical arguments against IPv6. It really
seems like you've been molested by a hurd of IPv6 addresses running
wild or something.

A few years ago, a fair number of bugs were still being worked out in
the v6 stacks pretty much everywhere and there were problems. Now it's
ancient history and things have been reliable for some time.

I've been running dual stack hosts since 2000. It was sometimes
unbearable in the first few years, but it's been *ages* since I've had
to deal with a v6-induced issue.


 Julien BLACHE <jbla...@debian.org>  |  Debian, because code matters more 
 Debian & GNU/Linux Developer        |       <http://www.debian.org>
 Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Reply via email to