Re: [v6ops] Lion/Snow Leaopard side-by-side on an IPv6 enabled ADSL2+ home line..

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Le 4 août 2011 à 23:00, james woodyatt a écrit :

> On Aug 4, 2011, at 13:10 , Sander Steffann wrote:
>> 
>> I think it boils down to:
>> - If it is used when it gives better performance to the user: great.
>> - If it is used when the performance is roughly equal to IPv6: please use IPv6.
> 
> I don't know how to say this differently, so I'm just going to repeat myself.

> If you provision your networks so that IPv4 paths have longer round-trip times or are congested more often and/or to a greater degree, then we will prefer less congested IPv6 paths.
> 
> Furthermore, if you provision your networks so that IPv6 paths have longer round-trip times or are congested more often and/or to a greater degree, then we will prefer less congested IPv4/NAT paths.

Full agreement on these two (at least for applications that express indifference about v4 or v6 being used).
 
> Finally, if you provision your networks so that IPv4 and IPv6 exhibit "roughly equivalent" levels of path latency and congestion, then we're going to try very, very hard to use both IPv4 and IPv6 in "roughly equivalent" measure.

Serious disagreement on this one.
In this case, v6 MUST be preferred:
- If both paths are "good" (as they should be!), preference for IPv6 tends to increase the v6/v4 traffic ratio, which will lead to a visible fading out of IPv4 use.
- It's easier to implement, AFAIK, than trying hard to evenly split the traffic between v4 and V6.
Any solid argument against this?

Regards,
RD