> On 26 Aug 2015, at 15:23 , Ca By <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:16 AM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: > >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:28:08 -0700, Ca By said: >> >>> Another relevant metric, less than 25% of my mobile subscribers traffic >>> require NAT64 translating. 75+% of bits flows through end-to-end IPv6 >>> (thanks Google/Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, Linkedin and so on >> ...). >> >> So I'm guessing that 75% of the traffic flows with better latency than >> the 25% IPvhorse-n-buggy traffic? ;) >> >> > Facebook says IPv6 is 20-40% faster > > http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2015/04/facebook-news-feeds-load-20-40-faster-over-ipv6/ > > Another way to look at it, IPv4 is 20-40% slower than IPv6.
The question I have not seen the answer yet to is “why?” Is this really because of the network, e.g., separate pipes in some places still, with forwarding devices handling a lot less pps? Is it because of people having done a newer cleaner-cut network stack implementation and lately cared about its performance? Is it about middle nodes? Has anyone done the research on this?
