<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 17:36 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
In message <1362634327.5180.6.camel@tardis>, Noel Butler writes:
> On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 13:25 -0800, Mark Smith wrote:
> > From: Matt Richards
>
> > >=20
> > > I'd love to turn IPv6 on for our own network, but neither of our upstre=
> ams=20
> > > support it (yes, i know, tunnels. no. i'm not doing that).
> > >=20
> >=20
> > Why not? I did for around 10 years.
>
>
> For me at least, because it was bloody painful (speed)... I enable it on
> my pissy little home webserver, but gave up using it for surfing and
> pretty much anything else, wont even use it for mail.
>
> I rather zippy websites and stuff, than trying to look cool... not that
> I could ever look that but yeah :)
Except for traffic that goes back to Australia I really don't see any
noticable difference between tunneled IPv6 and IPv4.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Google for one was horrific is response times, and I mean response as in http, half the sites I used at the time were same.<BR>
I would put a lot down to DNS, particularly noticed is delayed ssh sessions<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>