The benefits of deploying IPv6 only

What people said

scurvy · 2015-07 · Recommendation

NATs do induce a fair amount of latency. It's not exaggerated. Watch Paul Saab from Facebook talk about how much better IPv6 performs at NANOG 64: [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

X-Istence · 2015-06 · Recommendation

Comcast is going for a pure IPv6 core network, they are currently at 60% of their customers getting an IPv6 address of some sort (cable modem or even cable box). T-Mobile's network is IPv6 as well. Especially for customer devices that support 464XLAT: [LINK] There is a LOT of support for IPv6, and many companies like Facebook are finding that IPv6 actually offers better performance end to end for their users. Take a look at this NANOG presentation: [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

ay · 2015-06 · Recommendation

Exactly. And as the home speeds reach 1Gbps to the home, there will not be enough CGN boxes that will be able to sustain that load, so one of the two options: 1) more stateless mechanisms will be used (lw4o6, MAP) - which do not give the entire IPv4 address to residential users => so even if the service has an IPv4 address, the clients might have to go through the hurdles to get to it. Service providers are planning to go IPv6-only, and content providers already note that IPv6 gives a double-digit performance increase compared to IPv4 [1] 2) The residential ISPs will debundle the IPv4 from the cost - given that a lot of the sites average consumer needs (google, facebook, youtube, netflix) are already IPv6-enabled. For this case, you will not be even able to see that something is "wrong". Just the users will click on the link, see it's not reachable, say "huh?" and move on. [1] [VIDEO] - 1h12 well spent.

Read the original HN comment ↗