Hi Logan,
At 11:04 26-06-2016, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
>I would argue that if the smaller ISPs have more flexibility to innovate
>with IPv6 due to their smaller customer base.
Ok.
>I think that static IPv6 prefixes work better with the majority of
>applications that work on IPv6. Most haven't been designed with purely
>dynamic IPv6 like comcast. However, I agree with you, that privacy is
>important, and perhaps the way forward is fixing applications that don't
>work well with purely dynamic IPv6 assignments.
If I recall correctly there was a VoIP issue. I don't recall
encountering any significant problem with SLAAC. It has been some
time since I experimented with PD; I didn't do much with it.
>464xlat is not as good as dual stack, but we need a solution when we get
>dangerously close to IPv4 exhaustion, and I think that for cellular
>networks, this is close to dual stack in terms of user experience.
>Thank you. Can you mention your source please ?
Please go to www.lexpress.mu There is a link at the bottom of the web page.
>Are you using a tunnel to HE ?
No.
>75ms through ipv4 ?
Yes.
>318ms through ipv6 ?
It was over IPv4. I tested over IPv6 and it is around 386 ms. It is
not a good test. You could do a good test from your office network.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Sun Jun 26 2016 - 19:34:33 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Sun Jun 26 2016 - 19:36:02 PST