View
230
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Working Paper on
Comparison of Performance over IPv6 versus IPv4
By
Arthur Berger
Akamai Technologies
AbstractAsIPv4addressspacegetstighter,thereisincreasingpressuretodeployIPv6.TheInternetAssignedNumberAuthority(IANA)allocatedthelastoftheavailable/8’softhev4addressspacetotheRegionalInternetRegistries(RIR’s)onFebruary3,2011.Currently,theRIR’sarerestrictingallocationstocoveronlyabout3monthsofgrowth.Amarketforlegacyv4addresshasbegun:InMarch,2011,aspartofNortel'sbankruptcy,Microsoftbought667,000legacyv4addressesfor$11/address.SincethetransitiontoIPv6willbeslow,therewillbealongperiodwheremanyend‐pointswillbedualstack.Thus,theabilitytopickthebetterperformingpathoverv4versusv6willbeavaluablefeature.Wehavedoneaperformancecomparisonofv4versusv6latencyandloss,withresultsbycontinent,andbytunneledversusnativev6addresses.Althoughoverallperformanceisbetteroverv4,itisnotalwaysso;forexample10%ofthetimethelatencybetweentheU.S.andEuropeisshorteroverv6byatleast10ms,andtoAsiaisshorterbyatleast38ms.Latencyandlossoverv6isingeneralhighertotunneledv6destinations,ascomparedwithnative.Somewhatsurprisingly,thelatencyandlossover_v4_isalsohighertonameserverswhosev6interfaceistunneled,ascomparedwithnameserverswhosev6interfaceisnative.Weconjecturethatnameserverswithatunneledv6interfacearemorelikelytobeinsmallernetworks,lowerdowninthehierarchy.Thus,thecommonobservationthatv6latencyishigherovertunnelsisnotdueexclusivelytothepoorerv6architectureoftunnels,butalsoispartiallyduetootherfactors,suchasthetopologicallocation.
ArthurBerger Page2of30 March29,2011
TableofContents1 Dataset ....................................................................................................................................................3
2 SummaryStatsbyGeoRegion......................................................................................................33 ComparisonofV6andV4Latency:Distributions ...............................................................6
4 ComparisonAcrossTime................................................................................................................9
4.1 ApriltoDecember,2010.........................................................................................................94.2 July12through14,2010..................................................................................................... 15
5 RelatedWork..................................................................................................................................... 21
6 References .......................................................................................................................................... 227 AppendixA.DistributionofPacketLoss ............................................................................... 23
8 AppendixB.AdditionalLatencyDistributions .................................................................. 27
ArthurBerger Page3of30 March29,2011
PerformanceComparisonofv6versusv4
1 DatasetPingsweresentto6,864globallydistributeddual‐stacknameserversfromthreelocationsintheU.S.:Dallas,TX;SanJose,CA;andReston,VA.ThepresentreportconsidersmeasurementsfortheperiodfromApril12,2010throughDecember19,2010.Forthisperiod,wehave44millionmeasurementson9,223distincttimeepochs.
Therearetimeperiodswherenomeasurementswerecollected,mostnotablyApril24to25,June25toJuly1,August11to24,andOctober27toNovember8.
For2,085ofthe6,864nameservers,theIPv6interfaceisa6to4tunnel(address2002::/16)and33areaTeredotunnel(address2001:0::/32),wherethesearethetwomostpopulartunnelingmethodologiescurrentlyinuse.Wehavepartitionedsomeoftheresultsbelowinto"tunneled"and"native"basedontheIPv6addressofthenameservers.Caution:itispossiblethatapathtoa"native"nameserverdoescontainatunnel.
2 SummaryStatsbyGeoRegionIntermsofthesummarystatistics,Table1showsthesummarystatisticsofmedian,mean,andninety‐fifthpercentileoflatencyoverv4andoverv6,conditionedonthegeographicregionofthenameserverandwhetherthev6interfaceofthenameserverisnative,tunneled,oreither.Afirstobservationisthatintermsofthesesummarystatistics,thelatencyislessoverv4thanv6.Forexample,fordestinationsintheNorthAmerica,themeanlatencyis55msoverv4butsubstantiallyhigher,101ms,overv6.
Asecondobservationisthat,exceptforSouthAmerica,thelatencyishighertodestinationswherethev6interfaceistunneled,asopposedtonative,andthispertainsforboththev6andv4path.Forexample,fordestinationsinAsiawherethev6interfaceisnative,themeanlatencyoverv6was212ms.Forv6interfacesthataretunneled,themeanlatencyoverv6wassignificantlyhigherat317ms.Andalsooverv4,themeanlatencyisagainhighertodestinationswherethev6interfaceistunneled,205msversus245ms.Thatthelatencyoverv6ishighertotunneleddestinationsisconsistentwithcommonexpectations;however,itissomewhatasurprisethatthelatencyoverv4isalsohigher.Howcouldthev6interfaceaffectthelatencyoverthev4path?Admittedlythesetofnameserversaredistinct;thatis,wearecomparingv4latencytoonesetofdestinations,thosewhosev6interfaceistunneled,withthev4latencytoanotherset,albeitinthesamegeographicregion.However,thisalonedoesnotimplyanyintrinsicbiasandthusdoesnotexplainwhythelatency(intermsofthe
ArthurBerger Page4of30 March29,2011
summarystatistics)isconsistentlyhighertooneofthetwosets.Also,thenumberofdestinationsineachsetisreasonablylarge,2,085and4,779,andthecauseisnotduetoafewoutliers,astheaffectalsopertainsforthemedianand95percentile.AlthoughIdonothavethedefinitiveexplanation,aplausibleexplanationisthatthenameserverswithatunneledv6interfacearemorelikelytobeinsmallernetworks,lesswell‐connectednetworks,lowerdowninthehierarchy.Supportingthisexplanationwehaveestimatesofv4loadfromthenameservers,asseenbyAkamai,andtheloadfromthenameserverswithtunneledv6interfacesoverallisindeedlower.
Latency[ms]Median Mean 95thpercentile
Geo‐Region
SetofNameserversbasedonv6interface v4 v6 v4 v6 v4 v6
native 47 86 52 95 101 172all 49 92 55 101 108 192
NorthAmerica
tunneled 53 101 61 114 119 216
native 151 162 154 163 218 231all 154 166 158 168 224 240
Europe
tunneled 167 182 172 188 252 273
native 184 198 205 212 359 331all 196 215 216 240 367 388
Asia
tunneled 229 313 245 317 378 469
native 183 198 188 208 272 345all 176 217 186 235 306 392
SouthAmerica
tunneled 172 233 186 246 330 404
native 344 357 337 350 438 454all 348 368 356 379 481 529
Africa
tunneled 355 393 377 415 557 697
native 208 216 211 232 293 317all 210 227 216 244 298 384
Australia
tunneled 225 275 235 288 329 401Table1
Regardlessofthecorrectexplanation,Table1showsthatthecommonobservationthatv6latencyishigherovertunnels,ascomparedwithnative,isnotdueexclusivelytothepoorerv6architectureoftunnels,butalsoispartiallyduetootherfactors,inparticularassuggestedabove,thetopologicallocation.
ArthurBerger Page5of30 March29,2011
Insubsequentresultswherewesplitoutthev6measurementsbasedontunneledornative,wedolikewiseforv4,whichyieldsaperspectiveon"thehigherv6latencyovertunnels"thatisduetothetunnels.Athirdobservationisthattheextentv4isbetterthanv6(inthesenseoflowerlatency)ismoresubstantialfordestinationswithv6tunnels.Forexample,fordestinationsinAsia,thereductioninthemedianlatencyis84ms(229minus313)giventunneleddestinations,andisonly14ms(184minus198)givennativedestinations.ThisaffectismorenoticeableforAsia,SouthAmerica,Africa,andAustralia,thanforNorthAmericaandEurope,thoughitisstillpresent.ThefollowingTable2providesthesummarystatisticsonpacketloss.Themedianvaluesareomittedfromthetableastheywereall0,exceptforv6pathstotunneledinterfacesinAfrica,wherethemedianwas0.3%.Observations:
PercentPacketLoss[0,100]Mean 95thpercentile
Geo‐Region
SetofNameserversbasedonv6interface v4 v6 v4 v6native 0.4 2.1 0.5 6.6all 0.6 3.2 1.2 23.2
NorthAmerica
tunneled 1.0 5.2 3.2 32.4
native 0.5 0.7 1.3 2.0all 0.7 1.8 2.2 10.3
Europe
tunneled 1.4 6.0 6.5 31.8
native 3.0 1.2 20.8 6.3all 2.8 2.7 19.0 18.6
Asia
tunneled 2.2 6.9 11.4 34.8
native 0.8 1.0 4.8 4.7all 1.7 4.4 8.6 27.9
SouthAmerica
tunneled 2.1 5.7 9.8 31.6
native 2.0 4.8 9.5 32.8all 2.8 6.7 12.4 40.0
Africa
tunneld 3.9 9.0 19.1 43.4
native 0.4 1.0 1.6 5.0all 0.6 2.0 2.9 11.5
Australia
tunneled 1.4 5.6 7.8 31.3Table2
Thepacketlossoverv4islessthanoverv6,exceptfordestinationsinAsia,whereinterestinglythelossishigheroverv4tothosenameserverswithanativev6interface.
ArthurBerger Page6of30 March29,2011
The95thpercentileofpacketlossisquitehighatthev6tunneledinterfaces.Thepacketlosstothev4interfaceislowertothesetofnameserverswhosev6interfaceisnative,asopposedtothesetofnameserverswhosev6interfaceistunneled,exceptagainforAsia.Thisisconsistentwiththeheuristicexplanationabovethatnameserverswithtunneledinterfacestendtobeinnetworksthataresmaller,furtherdowninthehierarchy.AppendixAcontainsplotsofthecomplementarydistributionfunctionsofpacketloss.Theseplotsemphasizethepointsabove.
3 ComparisonofV6andV4Latency:DistributionsThefollowingtwoplotsshowthedistributionofthedifference:IPv6latencyminusIPv4latency,partitionedbygeoregion.Positivevaluesonthex‐axiscorrespondtov6latencybeinggreaterthanv4.Therangeonthex‐axiswaschosensoastohighlightmostoftheaction,althoughitcuts‐offeachendofthedistributions.Ifthefullrangewereshown,thedistributionswouldgofrom0to1.Forexample,considerthefirstplotandthedistributiongivendestinationsinEurope.Atthezeropointonthex‐axis,thedistributionis0.29.Thus,for29%ofthemeasurementsthelatencyoverv6waslessthanorequaltothatoverv4.Likewisefor71%ofthemeasurements,thelatencyoverv6wasgreater.Lookingatthe‐10msonthex‐axis,wefindthatfor11%ofthemeasurements,thelatencyofv6wassmaller(better)byatleast10ms.Consideringtheticksat‐10msand10ms,for48%(59%minus11%)ofthemeasurements,thelatencyoverv6waswithin10msofthatoverv4.Ifonedidn'tcareaboutlatencydifferenceswithin10ms,thenforabouthalfofthetime,onewouldbeindifferent(consideringonlythisfactor)betweenthetwoprotocols.Asfirst‐ordersummary,theplotsshowthatmoreoftenthelatencyisgreateroverv6.However,therewillbegivenclientsforwhichthisisnotthecase.Inthecontextofoptimizingperformance,onewouldideallyliketobeabletodistinguishwhichwouldbebetter.
Figure1.Distributionofdifferenceinv6versusv4latencies
ArthurBerger Page7of30 March29,2011
ArthurBerger Page8of30 March29,2011
Thefollowingtwoplotsprovideanotherviewpointonthesamedatabyconsideringtheratioofv6latencydividedbyv4latencyandwherethex‐axisisonalogscale.
Figure2.Distributionofratiooflatencies
ArthurBerger Page9of30 March29,2011
AppendixBcontainsanalogousplots,exceptpartitionedbytunneledversusnative.
4 ComparisonAcrossTimeThissectioncomparesv4versusv6latencyandloss,viewedacrosstime.
4.1 ApriltoDecember,2010InthefollowingFigure3,eachplottedpointisthemeanovera24‐hourperiod.(Recallthattherearegapsinthemeasurementdataasisevidentintheplots.)Therearesixplotsoflatency,oneforeachgeographicarea,followedbysixplotsofpacketloss.Notethattherangeonthey‐axisvariesfromplottoplot.Themostobviousfeatureofthelatencyplotsistheclearvariationacrosstime.Aseachpointistheaverageover24hours,thevariationinlatencyisonlongertimescalesthandailyvariation(whichisconsideredinthenextsection).Sometimeshigherlatencycanpersistformonths,asforexampleoverv6totunneleddestinations(thegreenline)inNorthAmerica,AsiaandSouthAmerica.Also,allofthegeographicregionshavespikesinlatency.Notethatsometimesthevariationisstronglycorrelatedacrossthefourcases,asforEurope,andsometimesnot,asforNorthAmerica.Theseobservationssuggestthatamoredetailedstudycouldmake
ArthurBerger Page10of30 March29,2011
inferencesastowherecongestionwasoccurring.ThiscouldbepossiblefutureworkfortheIPv6project.Considernowthedifferenceinlatencyacrossthefourcaseswithineachgeographicregion.Ineachgeographicregion,thehighestlatencyisonthev6pathtotunneleddestinations,whichisconsistentwiththesummarystatisticsinSection2.Likewise,thelowestlatencyisonthev4pathtodestinationswhosev6interfaceisnative,exceptforSouthAmerica.Considerthedifferencebetweenthegreenandbluelines,i.e.thelatencyoverv6totunneledversusnativedestinations.Someofthedifferenceisduetothewell‐knownpoorerarchitectureofv6tunnelsand,some,assuggestedinSection2,islikelyduethetunneleddestinationsbeinginnetworksthataresmaller,furtherdowninthehierarchy(callthissecondfactor“inferiortopology”).Asaroughestimateofthissecondfactor,wecanusethedifferencebetweenthev4latencytodestinationswhosev6interfacesaretunneledversusnative,i.e.thedifferencebetweentheyellowandredlinesintheplots.Forexample,inNorthAmerica,thespacebetweentheyellowandredlinesisfairlysmallandsoisthespacebetweentheblueandyellowlinesuntilroughlyOct.1.Thesubsequentjumpinthegreenlineisprobablyduetosomethingregardingthetunnels,asopposedtotheinferiortopology,astheyellowlineremainsrelativelyflat.Itisworthemphasizingthatthedifferencebetweentheyellowandredlinesisjustaroughestimateofthe“inferiortopology”factor:forexample,intheNorth‐Americaplottherearepointswherethedifferencebetweentheyellowandredlinesisgreaterthanthatbetweenthegreenandblue,andthusmakesnosensetobeviewedasapieceofthelatter.IntheEuropeplot,thespacebetweentheyellowandredlinesisaboutequaltothatbetweenthegreenandbluethussuggestingthepoorerperformancewithv6tunnels,versusnative,isduetotheinferiortopology.Noticealsothatthefourlinesarequiteinsyncwitheachother,whichsuggeststhatthevariationinlatencyisduetocongestiononfacilitiesthataresharedbyallfourcases,suchastrans‐oceanicopticalcables.Theremaininggeographicregionscanbeviewedwiththeabovecommentsinmind.Inaddition,notethatintheAsiaplot,theredlineissignificantlymorevariablethantheyellow(thoughisstilllower).Ihaven’tthoughtofalikelyexplanationthoughafurtherexaminationofthedatamightbeilluminating.NoticealsothatinAsiathebluelineissometimesbelowthered‐thelatencyoverv6,tonativedestinations,issometimesfasterthanoverv4.ThisisexaminedmorethoroughlyinAppendixB.InSouthAmerica,theredandyellowlinesroughlyoverlap,and,asreportedinTable1ofSection2,thev4latencytodestinationswhosev6interfaceisnativeisactuallyabithigherthantodestinationswhosev6interfaceistunneled.Thus,thisdatadoesnotsupportthesuppositionof“inferiortopology”fortunneledinterfacesforSouthAmerica.
ArthurBerger Page11of30 March29,2011
Figure3.TimeHistoryofLatency,April–Dec.,2010
ArthurBerger Page12of30 March29,2011
ArthurBerger Page13of30 March29,2011
Thefollowingaretheanalogoussixplotsforpacketloss.Notethattherangeonthey‐axisvaries.Themoststrikingfeatureisthatthereareperiodsofhighloss.FromSeptemberthroughDecember,thereishighv6losstotunneleddestinationsinallgeographicregions.Allthreeoriginregionshadhighloss.Thusthecausewasbroadenoughtoaffectmultipleorigins.Apossibleexplanationisthatforallthreeorigins,theroutetotheanycast6to4address,2002::/16,ledtorelaysthatwereoverloaded,andthatthisconditionpersisted.AnycastroutingisbasedonBGP,whichdoesnotadapttocongestion.Assuch,anetworkoperatorwouldneedtointerveneandchangepolicy.AlsonotethatduringJuneandJuly,therewashighv6losstonativedestinationsinoneofthegeographicregions:NorthAmerica.Inthiscase,justoneofthreeoriginregionshadthehighloss,thusthecausewaslocalized.Notethatthelosstooverv4andoverv6todestinationswithv6tunneledinterfaces(yellowandgreenlines)ishigherthantodestinationswithv6nativeinterfaces,exceptforAsiawherethereversepertainsforperiodsforv4.(ThisisconsistentwithTable1inSection2.)Idon’thaveanexplanationforthisexceptioninAsia.
Figure4.TimeHistoryofPacketLoss,April–Dec.,2010
ArthurBerger Page14of30 March29,2011
ArthurBerger Page15of30 March29,2011
4.2 July12through14,2010Togetasenseofanhour‐of‐daypattern,ifany,weplotathree‐dayperiodinJuly.Eachplottedpointisthemeanoveraone‐hourperiod.Againtherearesixplotsoflatency,followedbysixplotsofpacketloss.Therangeonthey‐axisvariesfromplottoplot.Dailyvariationinlatencyandlossistypicallyduehigherloadsandthusincreasedcongestionduringthebusyperiodoftheday.Relativelyconstantlatencyandlossoverthecourseofthedaytypicallyisindicativeofeitherconstant(lightorheavy)load,orvariableloadthathoweverremainslight.ThelatencyplotforSouthAmericashowsstrongdailyvariationforallfourcases,indicatingcongestiononthepathsbetweenthereandtheUS.Fordestinationsin
ArthurBerger Page16of30 March29,2011
Europe,thedailyvariationinlatencyisalsoevident,thoughlessextreme.ForNorthAmericathedailyvariationisaslight,ifany.ForAustralia,noneisapparent.ThelatencyplotforAsiaismorecurious:thereisstrongdailyvariationforthreeofthefourcases,butthelatencyisratherconstantfortrafficoverv6tonativedestinations.Possiblytheroutesfromthethreeoriginstothenativev6addressesinAsiaareonanuncongestedtrans‐oceanicchannelthoughIwouldbesurprisedifafiberchannelwerereservedforv6traffic,butmaybeitis.(Theroutestothetunneledv6addressesmostlikelygoviaanycast6to4relaysintheU.S.,inwhichcasethetrans‐oceanichopinalllikelihoodisoverv4.)ThelatencyplotforAfricainonesenseisthereverseofAsia’s–threeofthecaseshavelittletonodailyvariation,andonedoes:v6totunneleddestinations.Apossibilityisthatatthefar‐endofthetunnel,thev6networksareresourceconstrained.(Althoughlatencyoverv4todestinationswithnativev6interfacesisalsovariable,theredline,thevariabilityisnotsomuchinadailypattern.)Ifthereisinterest,futureworkcouldinvestigatetheaboveconjecturesandingeneralinvestigatethecausesforvariousbehaviordisplayedintheseplots.Asafinalnote:whenIexaminedotherthree‐dayintervals,Iwouldsometimesseethesamepatternsashereandsometimesseedifferentones.Whatpertainedforonethree‐dayintervalneednotpertainmonthslater.
Figure5.TimeHistoryofLatency,July1214,2010
ArthurBerger Page17of30 March29,2011
ArthurBerger Page18of30 March29,2011
Thefollowingarethecorrespondingplotsforpacketloss.Notethattherangeonthey‐axisvariesfromplottoplotAswithlatency,SouthAmericahasveryevidentdailyvariationinloss.Againaswithlatency,adailyvariationinlossisalsoevidentforEurope,thoughmoremodest.NorthAmericahasnoevidentdailyvariation;also,asdiscussedaboveinSection4.1,therelativelyhighv6losstonativedestinationsinNorthAmericaisduetojustoneofthethreeorigins.Asiahasdailyvariationinlossforallfourcases,including,thoughmoremodest,v6probestonativev6,whoselatencyhadbeenflat.Africaisnotableforhighspikesinloss.
ArthurBerger Page19of30 March29,2011
Australia,whichhadnodailyvariationinlatency,hasnoticeablevariationinloss,thatsomewhatfollowsadailypattern.Asaroughsummary,thepresenceorabsenceofdailyvariationinlossmirrorsthatoflatency.
Figure6.TimeHistoryofPacketLoss,July1214,2010
ArthurBerger Page20of30 March29,2011
ArthurBerger Page21of30 March29,2011
5 RelatedWorkHereisasampling,inreversechronologicalorder,ofstudiesthatcomparev4andv6performance.Narayanetal.[1]onatestbed,comparev4andv6onWindowsVistaandUbuntu.Theyfindthatv4hadslightlyhigherthroughput.v6hadsignificantlyhigherlatencyonUbuntu,ascomparedwithVista.Lawetal.[2]probefromalocationinHongKongto2,000dual‐stack,globalhosts.v6hadlowerhop‐countsandhigherRTTandhigherthroughput.RTTwas40%higherontunneledv6versusnativev6.Zhuoetal.[3]used26testboxesofRIPE,globallydistributed,thoughconcentratedinEurope,and600end‐to‐endpaths.TheyreportthatIPv6hashigherlossandlatency,mainlyduetotunneling.Siauetal.[4]inalarge‐scalenetworkenvironmentfindaminordegradationinthroughputofTCP,aslightlyhigherthroughputofUDP,alowerpacketlossrateandaslightlylongerroundtriptimeoverv6ascomparedwithv4.Zhouetal.[5]reportthatv6pathshadlargerdelayvariation,andlongerdelay.Fromabout1,000dual‐stackwebserversin44countries,Wangetal.[6]foundthatv6connectionstendtohavesmallerRTTs,butsufferhigherpacketloss.Theauthorsalsofindthattunneledpathsdonotshowanotabledegradedperformancecomparedwithnative.Choetal.[7]introducetechniquesforidentifyingIPv6networkproblemsatdual‐stacknodes.TheyfindthatIPv6networkqualitycanbeimprovedbyfixingalimitedamountoferroneoussettings.ARINandRIPEhavelinkstovariousmeasurementstudies,[8,9].
ArthurBerger Page22of30 March29,2011
6 References[1] S.Narayan,P.Shang&N.Fan,"PerformanceEvaluationofIPv4andIPv6on
WindowsVistaandLinuxUbuntu,"Inter.ConferenceonNetworksSecurity,WirelessCommunicationsandTrustedComputing,2009
[2] Y.N.Law,M.C.Lai,W.Tan&W.Lau,"EmpiricalperformanceofIPv6vs.IPv4underadual‐stackenvironment,"IEEEInter.ConferenceonCommunications,2008.
[3] X.Zhou,M.Jacobsson,H.Uijterwaal&P.Mieghem,"IPv6delayandlossperformanceevaluation,"Inter.J.ofCommunicationSystems,Vol.21,2008.
[4] W.L.Siau,Y.F.Li,H.C.Chao&P.Y.Hsu,"EvaluatingIPv6onalarge‐scalenetwork,"ComputerCommunications,Vol.29,No.16,2006.
[5] X.Zhou&P.Mieghem,"HopcountandE2EDelay:IPv6versusIPv4,"PassiveandActiveNetworkMeasurements,2005.
[6] Y.Wang,S.Ye&X.Li,"UnderstandingCurrentIPv6Performance:Ameasurementstudy,"IEEESymposiumonComputersandCommunications,2005.
[7] K.Cho,M.Luckie&B.Huffaker,"IdentifyingIPv6NetworkProblemsintheDual‐StackWorld,"ACMSIGCOMMWorkshoponNetworkTroubleshooting,2004.
[8] labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/content‐ipv6‐measurement‐compilation.
[9] www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Penetration_Survey_Results
ArthurBerger Page23of30 March29,2011
7 AppendixA.DistributionofPacketLossThefollowingplotsshowthecomplementarydistributionfunctionofpacketloss(a.k.a.thecomplementarycumulativedistributionfunction,i.e.1minusthecumulativedistributionfunction,i.e.theprobabilitytherandomvariableisgreaterthanagivenvalue).Thecomplementarydistributionfunctionisoftenusedwhentheinterestisinthetailbehavior.Thereisoneplotforeachofthesixgeographicareas.Notethatrangeonthey‐axisvaries.Tointerprettheseplots,considerthefirstone,forNorthAmerica,andtheredlinerepresentingv6packetlosstotunneledv6interfaces.Thepoint(5,0.2)ontheplotmeansthat20%ofthemeasurementshadpacketlossof5%ormore.TheseplotsemphasizetheobservationsmadeinSection2.Thehigherv6packetlosstotunneledinterfacesisclearlyevident.
Figure7.ComplementaryDistributionFunctionsofPacketLoss
ArthurBerger Page24of30 March29,2011
ArthurBerger Page25of30 March29,2011
ArthurBerger Page26of30 March29,2011
ArthurBerger Page27of30 March29,2011
8 AppendixB.AdditionalLatencyDistributionsThefollowingplotsareanalogoustothoseinSection3exceptinadditiontodisplayingthecaseofallthedestinationsinagivengeo‐region,alsoshownisthepartitionofdestinationsintonativeandtunneled.Therangeontheaxesisheldconstantacrosstheplots,andischosentohighlighttheportionwherethereisthemostaction.(Thedistributionsdoincreaseto1,ifthefullrangeonthex‐axiswereshown.)Notethatthedistributiongivennative(blueline)liesabovethatgiventunneled(redline).Thisimpliesthattheamountthattransportisbetteroverv4(inthesenseoflowerlatency)isgreaterfordestinationswithv6tunneledinterfacesthanfornative.Forexample,considerthe0.5valueonthey‐axis,themedian.ForNorthAmerica,50%ofthetimethev4latencyisatleast14msbetterthanv6fornativedestinations(blueline),andissignificantlymore,atleast40msbetterfortunneleddestinations(redline).ForSouthAmerica,thesetimesare7msand43ms.Foranotherviewpointonthesameconcept,considerSouthAmerica(andlookingat20msonthex‐axis,andtakingthecomplementofthey‐value),fordestinationswherev6istunneled(redline),thev4latencyisbetterbyatleast20ms68%ofthetime,whereasfordestinationswherev6isnative,thev4latencyisbetterbyatleast20msonly31%ofthetime.Lookingat‐20msonthex‐axis,v6isbetterbyatleast20ms14%ofthetimefornativeinterfacesandisbetterbyatleast20msnotasfrequently,5%ofthetime,fortunneledinterfaces.
Figure8.Distributionofdifferenceinlatencies,partitionedbyv6interface
ArthurBerger Page28of30 March29,2011
ArthurBerger Page29of30 March29,2011
ArthurBerger Page30of30 March29,2011
Recommended