<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Just chiming in with another 2 cents - I have pretty much native
IPv6 at home (proper /64 from our /32 APNIC assignment) full BGP
peering on both transit and IX's - and all my debian (ubuntu
specifically) devices set to use IPv6.<br>
<br>
I have found situations (on more then one occasion) where the IPv6
counterpart to the same resource, is a lesser option. I feel IPv6 is
a lower priority on most networks in the sense of full traffic
engineering, and as such can have usability consequences.<br>
<br>
A bad but quick example would be Google's public DNS - 8.8.8.8 and
8.8.4.4 are 12ms away from my house - however
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
2001:4860:4860::8888 and 2001:4860:4860::8844 are 150ms away from my
house - I learn both routes from Megaport but Google obviously
placing more priority on IPv4 for public DNS - I say this is a bad
example as most other google/youtube resources are very close and
fast via IPv6 as well, but I have had other random resources showing
300ms on IPv6 vs 150ms on IPv4 and so on.<br>
<br>
So this phenomenon has been discussed in terms of Happy Eyeballs,
but that was taking into account the lag of IPv6 tunnel brokers, I
just wanted to give an example of a more 'native' IPv6 feel.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/03/15 19:12, Russell Langton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGq70S+Ot6XZL7LC34uP93awmhtcwDUN6gQ31p8Ls1oSgY=m2Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi Noel,<br>
<br>
</div>
Very eye opening from a user point of view.<br>
<br>
</div>
I know some of those websites have some ipv6 - <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://ipv6.slashdot.org">ipv6.slashdot.org</a>
for example, but from a user point it goes to show that there
is alot of work still to do.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>it would be interesting to undertake the same test in the
future to see if any improvements.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
I am wondering if the admins of any of those domains are on the
list and could comment on the ipv6 readiness and whats holding
it back as a learning experience? <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Noel
Butler <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:noel.butler@ausics.net" target="_blank">noel.butler@ausics.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="font-size:10pt">
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p>On 30/03/2015 12:23, Noel Butler wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding:0
0.4em;border-left:#1010ff 2px solid;margin:0">
<p>On 27/03/2015 21:37, Mark Newton wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="padding:0
0.4em;border-left:#1010ff 2px solid;margin:0">
<div> </div>
<div>You're going to make sure that IPv6 cannot
possibly be something you can use by
constructing an impractical test scenario that
is guaranteed to produce a poor result?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Dual stack, Noel. That means both protocols
are running. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>You don't need to nuke IPv4, you just need to
prevent Happy Eyeballs from selecting your IPv4
addresses in preference to your higher-latency
tunneled IPv6 addresses.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you had deployed IPv6 on your network, the
latencies if the two protocols would be
equivalent and you'd be sending and receiving
about half of your household traffic over IPv6
just like the rest of us without needing to
tweak any Happy Eyeballs settings.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That's up from about 10-15% three years ago.
IPv4 is diminishing, and will be at background
radiation levels by approximately the date at
which AusNOG participants decide to stop
blocking new IPv6 deployment.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> - mark</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>On the contrary Mark, if you and others are
saying half my household traffic should be over
ipv6, than the other half should just not be
there...</p>
<p>I have my results, on Saturday I sent David an
email checking if it was ok to send it to the
list, he has not yet replied, but that's OK I
decided since I am blogging about it anyway, I'll
advise the link to the post later today, so those
who want to see details. It's already written,
just need to be polished of typos :) But in case
you don't care to read it for details, the summary
is I found 0.04% of my sites workable on IPv6.</p>
<p>Ohh and Mark Smith's concerns were addressed as
well, and only came into play on 1 site.</p>
<p> </p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p>The indepth details <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bit.ly/1HWhSDq" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/1HWhSDq</a></p>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog"
target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>