Re: [v6ops] Geoff/queue-closed: 56%

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

>> On 17/04/2024 11:13, Xipengxiao wrote:

>> We should document IPv6 packet loss issues, identify causes, and publish
>> drafts to address the issues.  Now that average IPv6 RTT is lower than 
>> IPv4 RTT (according to APNIC stats), if we can bring IPv6 PLR (packet 
>> loss rate) comparable to IPv4 PLR, then we can declare IPv6 provides 
>> better performance than IPv4. 
> I think first we need to dig into *why* those measurements are seen.>As far as I can tell there is no fundamental reason why IPv6 should be any more performant than IPv4 for latency, and I would expect typical TCP throughput to be ~1.4% > worse on IPv6, due to the larger headers.

We are working on some tests to methodically compare IPv6 and IPv4 performance using various topologies, applications, OSs and so forth.  We plan to have a draft on our findings for IETF in Dublin.
Thanks,

Nalini Elkins
CEO and Founder
Inside Products, Inc.
https://www.insidethestack.com
PresidentIndustry Network Technology Councilhttps://www.industrynetcouncil.org 

    On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 03:54:05 AM PDT, Brian Candler <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
  On 17/04/2024 11:13, Xipengxiao wrote:
  
 We should document IPv6 packet loss issues, identify causes, and publish
 drafts to address the issues.  Now that average IPv6 RTT is lower than 
IPv4 RTT (according to APNIC stats), if we can bring IPv6 PLR (packet 
loss rate) comparable to IPv4 PLR, then we can declare IPv6 provides 
better performance than IPv4.  
 
I think first we need to dig into *why* those measurements are seen.
 
As far as I can tell there is no fundamental reason why IPv6 should be any more performant than IPv4 for latency, and I would expect typical TCP throughput to be ~1.4% worse on IPv6, due to the larger headers.
 
Personally, I observe paths taken over the IPv6 Internet often to be quite different to those taken for IPv4, and that may indeed mean shorter and/or less congested paths for IPv6, but this seems to be down to political issues rather than technical ones (e.g. a certain well-known tier 2 backbone provider offering free peering on IPv6, to pick up more routes in an attempt to persuade tier 1's to peer with them)
 
I don't think this is sustainable in the long term though.
 Furthermore, the fact that IPv6 topology is not the same as IPv4 has its own problems. If you can argue in any form that the IPv4 Internet is "fully connected", then the IPv6 Internet is not; for example Google doesn't announce IPv6 routes to transit providers (or didn't last time that I checked), meaning that some people can't reach Google over IPv6 at all. Most of the time, Happy Eyeballs papers over the cracks - i.e. IPv4 connectivity is the only one that matters today.
 

> That can become a universal reason to persuade people to migrate to IPv6.  
 
I don't believe that it stands up as such.
 
Also, everyone should be clear that there is currently no such thing as "migrate to IPv6". You either add IPv6 to your IPv4 stack, or you stay with IPv4. You can't remove the IPv4 part without cutting yourself off from most of the Internet.
 _______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops