Re: spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

On 18/10/2008, at 12:18 AM, Michael Simpson wrote: On 10/16/08, Truman Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's a good point that you brought up. Even though we already have IPv6 P2P (Nathan's post explains this in more detail), it would still be quite interesting to provide IPv6 as a higher

RE: spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

> As long as none of your ipv6 traffic transits across anything > from British Telecom as it is not supported on their 21st > Century Network > > parently-not.html> The distinction between supported, and unsupported is that when

Re: spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

On 10/16/08, Truman Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's a good point that you brought up. > > Even though we already have IPv6 P2P (Nathan's post explains this in more > detail), it would still be quite interesting to provide IPv6 as a higher > class of traffic within service provider networks.

Re: spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

It's a good point that you brought up. Even though we already have IPv6 P2P (Nathan's post explains this in more detail), it would still be quite interesting to provide IPv6 as a higher class of traffic within service provider networks. Quite likely 6to4 relays and native IPv6 traffic is be

RE: spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

from the content that is non-ratable if delivered over P2P, but that is a different topic. >-Original Message- >From: Nathan Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:33 PM >To: Niall Donegan >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: spurring transi

Re: spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

On 15/10/2008, at 8:56 AM, Niall Donegan wrote: Scott Doty wrote: After all, if most p2p traffic is v4, prioritizing ipv6 (as a general concept) should improve the user experience. How long do you think it will take for the P2P software authors to transition over to IPv6? I'll bet that P2P use

Re: spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

On 15/10/2008, at 6:19 AM, Scott Doty wrote: Just wondering: what if we gave ipv6 traffic "mucho priority" over ipv4 traffic, then tell our user communities that ipv6 provides a better quality network experience, including (hopefully) faster page loads, & lower video game pings? I think b

RE: spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:56 PM To: Scott Doty Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster Scott Doty wrote: > After all, if most p2p traffic is v4, prioritizing ipv6 (as a general > concept) should improve the user experience

Re: spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

Scott Doty wrote: > After all, if most p2p traffic is v4, prioritizing ipv6 (as a general > concept) should improve the user experience. How long do you think it will take for the P2P software authors to transition over to IPv6? I'll bet that P2P users will be a lot more likely to use IPv6 over Au

spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

We've had one presentation on the "unfairness" of p2p traffic, which (the presenter says) will eventually swamp us. Then just now, we had the presentation & subsequent discussion re: ipv6 adoption. Just wondering: what if we gave ipv6 traffic "mucho priority" over ipv4 traffic, then tell our us