--- cb.list6@gmail.com wrote: From: Ca By <cb.list6@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. ---------------------------------------- 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-bo... 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