▲ 315 ▼ It's easier to remember the IPs of good DNSes, too. (lemmy.sdf.org) submitted 2 years ago* by lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev 186 comments fedilink hide all child comments Today in our newest take on "older technology is better": why NAT rules!
[–] zewm@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (3 children) For me is because it’s so fucking slow. As soon as I disable ipv6 on every device it has better speeds. IPv6 is trash. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] orangeboats@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Tell that to your ISP which has fucked their IPv6 deployment up. In my experience IPv6 is actually faster since it bypasses the IPv4 CGNAT. On busy days my IPv4 connection can get as slow as 15KB/s, now that's trash. permalink fedilink source parent [–] efstajas@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lol that's ridiculous. There's nothing about ipv6 that'd make it any slower permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) There's one practical thing. Routers have had years to optimize IPv4 routing, which has to be redone for IPv6. Same with networking stacks in general. In theory, IPv6 should be faster by not having to do bullshit like CGNAT. There's every reason to think it'll match that advantage if we just make it happen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 2 years ago* In the USA, around 50% of Google traffic and 60% of Facebook traffic goes over IPv6. The largest mobile carriers in the US are nearly entirely IPv6-only too (customers don't get an IPv4 address, just an IPv6 one), using 464XLAT to connect to legacy IPv4-only servers. I'm sure we'd know if routing with IPv6 was slower. Google's data actually shows 10ms lower latency over IPv6: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption permalink fedilink source parent [–] frazorth@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago That doesn't make it "trash". permalink fedilink source parent [–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 2 years ago Google's data shows that IPv6 is usually faster. Their metrics show an average of 10ms less latency over IPv6 in the USA and Canada: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption permalink fedilink source parent
[–] orangeboats@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Tell that to your ISP which has fucked their IPv6 deployment up. In my experience IPv6 is actually faster since it bypasses the IPv4 CGNAT. On busy days my IPv4 connection can get as slow as 15KB/s, now that's trash. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] efstajas@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lol that's ridiculous. There's nothing about ipv6 that'd make it any slower permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) There's one practical thing. Routers have had years to optimize IPv4 routing, which has to be redone for IPv6. Same with networking stacks in general. In theory, IPv6 should be faster by not having to do bullshit like CGNAT. There's every reason to think it'll match that advantage if we just make it happen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 2 years ago* In the USA, around 50% of Google traffic and 60% of Facebook traffic goes over IPv6. The largest mobile carriers in the US are nearly entirely IPv6-only too (customers don't get an IPv4 address, just an IPv6 one), using 464XLAT to connect to legacy IPv4-only servers. I'm sure we'd know if routing with IPv6 was slower. Google's data actually shows 10ms lower latency over IPv6: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption permalink fedilink source parent [–] frazorth@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago That doesn't make it "trash". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) There's one practical thing. Routers have had years to optimize IPv4 routing, which has to be redone for IPv6. Same with networking stacks in general. In theory, IPv6 should be faster by not having to do bullshit like CGNAT. There's every reason to think it'll match that advantage if we just make it happen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 2 years ago* In the USA, around 50% of Google traffic and 60% of Facebook traffic goes over IPv6. The largest mobile carriers in the US are nearly entirely IPv6-only too (customers don't get an IPv4 address, just an IPv6 one), using 464XLAT to connect to legacy IPv4-only servers. I'm sure we'd know if routing with IPv6 was slower. Google's data actually shows 10ms lower latency over IPv6: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption permalink fedilink source parent [–] frazorth@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago That doesn't make it "trash". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 2 years ago* In the USA, around 50% of Google traffic and 60% of Facebook traffic goes over IPv6. The largest mobile carriers in the US are nearly entirely IPv6-only too (customers don't get an IPv4 address, just an IPv6 one), using 464XLAT to connect to legacy IPv4-only servers. I'm sure we'd know if routing with IPv6 was slower. Google's data actually shows 10ms lower latency over IPv6: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frazorth@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago That doesn't make it "trash". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 2 years ago Google's data shows that IPv6 is usually faster. Their metrics show an average of 10ms less latency over IPv6 in the USA and Canada: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption permalink fedilink source parent