On 05/09/2014 13:56, "Andy Davidson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm making an assumption that native v6 end to end will perform better >than nat44 squashed connectivity, and that web applications will become >more interactive with more moving parts, so therefore that content >networks/applications will get more latency sensitive, and therefore also >will consume more ports per user session. > >I am also making an assumption that users will prefer better performing >websites to bad performing websites and will vote in some number with >their feet towards better performing sites, and that native (working) v6 >will be so much better than nat (broken) v4 that a difference will be >observed by users. > >And I'm making a final assumption that this is well known by sensible >content assets like Google and why they have gone and done work to dual >stack their content infrastructure early. > >Yes, these are assumptions but is anyone going to stick a bet against >them ? Other than NeilX, who is known for recreational contraryism. :-) As opposed to Andy who is known for his recreational stating the bleeding obvious! ;) For the applications that work through CGN the difference between CGN and IPV6 is largely zero from a performance point of view even under load. (was it today that someone announced that there are now more things bought through mobile phones than computers, how do mobiles connect to the internet again? (and smart arses who think they have static IP¹s on their phones think before responding)) Just Saying!
