| |||||||||||||
What's so bad about IPv6?What's so bad about IPv6?Posted Jan 26, 2011 15:09 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)In reply to: What's so bad about IPv6? by dskoll Parent article: LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net The header overhead is larger and the payload size is limited by the path MTU, so it's probably smaller. But it's not enough to send performance down the drain.
(Log in to post comments)
What's so bad about IPv6? Posted Jan 29, 2011 5:48 UTC (Sat) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] The main place I've seen / heard of enabling IPv6 sending performance down the drain was when someone had it enabled, but some piece of the network they had to pass through or interact with (whether it was their weak ISP-supplied router or a crappy DNS server) didn't actually support it. So, you'd send out a DNS request via IPv6, wait for that to time out, and then fall back to IPv4. Or, at least, so the story goes. Since I'm not really any sort of IPv6 expert, I can only comment on the existence of reports such as these that I've seen go by the last year or two.
|
|||||||||||||