Re: Relative performance of IPv6 and IPv4 for current users

["EricLKlein" <ericlklein@softhome.net>]

Just out of curiosity, have the fixed that little problem in the MAC OS
where opening the printer selection window results in a ping every 30
seconds to all possible printers out there?

It was a problem in the old Mac OS, and if it is still there then you could
be sending out trillions of IMP pings every 30 seconds, this is almost as
good as Quake for killing a network.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Owens" <owens@nysernet.org>
To: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:55 PM
Subject: Relative performance of IPv6 and IPv4 for current users


> There's a small debate going on within the Apple IPv6 mailing list
> over whether it is wise to have an application prefer v6
> connectivity, when it is available, over v4. The argument against
> preferring to use v6 runs along the lines of "most people have only
> v4 connectivity, and for those few that have v6, the performance of
> v4 is usually better".
>
> Although it is hardly a scientific way to conduct a survey, I'm
> curious what the members of this group think of that assertion.
> Personally, I find that my v6 connectivity is either just about as
> good as v4, or very much worse, and the difference is whether the
> other end is connected natively or through some variety of tunnel.
> But I don't have a good feel for what percentage of v6-accessible
> sites fall into each category.
>
> There is also a sub-argument about 6to4, and whether it is sensible
> to enable 6to4 with anycast relay support given the dearth of relay
> routers. There seems to be some agreement that in the abscence of a
> local v6 router, allowing the machine to configure itself as a 6to4
> router without a relay is a reasonable compromise. I think that I can
> agree with that, if those v6 connection attempts which fail without
> the default route, do so rapidly enough to avoid delaying the
> eventual v4 connection. Would anyone with more 6to4 experience care
> to comment on that idea?
>
> Bill.
>