Today in our newest take on “older technology is better”: why NAT rules!

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months 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