this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
315 points (85.6% liked)

Programmer Humor

19623 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] efstajas@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Lol that's ridiculous. There's nothing about ipv6 that'd make it any slower

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 5 months 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.

[–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 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

[–] frazorth 1 points 5 months ago

That doesn't make it "trash".