I'm just curious, I don't have a fast connection and it appears the HE server endpoints closest to me are also the worst in terms of latency. out of interest, i ran the speed test and the ping test over at ipv6-test.com and my results for ipc6 are not terribly good. How do you find your results?
Where are you located? Your latency is terrible to be sure.. But looks like your have a ipv4 problem as well.
Here are mine from my router gateway monitor.
And then speed test both ipv4 and ipv6.. The download is not all that bad over the tunnel, but upload seems to take a real hit?
I'm using the Chicago tunnel, which is in my backyard to be sure (schaumburg, il)
on a 100Mbs connection it seems to be identical, although nowhere near 100Mbps ;D
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2011/06/08/bebd9e26ec89187cf66149fee050638b.png)
Quote from: johnpoz on June 08, 2011, 06:18:30 AM
Where are you located? Your latency is terrible to be sure.. But looks like your have a ipv4 problem as well.
Here are mine from my router gateway monitor.
And then speed test both ipv4 and ipv6.. The download is not all that bad over the tunnel, but upload seems to take a real hit?
I'm using the Chicago tunnel, which is in my backyard to be sure (schaumburg, il)
I'm in Eastern Russia, Vladivostok to be precise. The nearest HE server is Tokyo, which is just over a thousand kilometres away. This is follwed by Hong Kong at 1700Km and the Singapore at 3400km. Unfortunately, the latency to all of these locations is terrible, as I mentioned in this thread Changing tunnel server - Would there be any benefits? (http://www.tunnelbroker.net/forums/index.php?topic=1760.0)
At the moment I'm using Stockholm as my HE endpoint, however, with a little testing, it would appear that Amsterdam offers the best latency, at least in terms of ipv4, so I'll change to that server and see how things go.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/1333214022.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/1333208140.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/1333209855.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/1333202407.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/1333208832.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/1333201225.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/1333205139.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/1333204416.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
My connection currently isn't the greatest. Not because of the provider, I just made some changes
to the network for a temporary issue.
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2011/06/13/b01dafb70fab83e746af9ae807b14320.png) (http://ipv6-test.com)
The provider is giving me about 6 mbps and I have a bad card in one of the routers. So, temporarily we are down to 10mbps on that router. Waiting on another 100mbps card.
I am on the West Coast USA.
Heh. Not bad from the west coast of the USA to France. Interesting how IPv6 through the tunnel is faster than native IPv4 in this instance:
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2011/06/13/4b4bc73de9504155d56db14b5c79a12e.png)
performed the test again. Must have been a fluke. Now it's the other way around. I kinda thought that was weird.
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2011/06/14/7e4f9f7bb5459d2956596096b5c03bd5.png)
Not too much of a speed penalty to go all the way from California to Europe.
north-american folks might want to try http://www.noc.maine.edu/speedtest.net/ instead.
I get 30Mbps++ on that test ;D
(http://cconn.info/speed.PNG)
A little better with Amsterdam as the endpoint, but still a way under my connection limit.
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2011/06/14/70bda9767c9fa5e9dff08539caaf008c.png) (http://ipv6-test.com)
i tried ping test here
whoisxy.com (http://www.whoisxy.com/)
my results are
Reply from 173.203.189.224: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 173.203.189.224: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 173.203.189.224: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 173.203.189.224: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Ping statistics for 173.202.190.224:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2011/11/24/eb9d4e5070052489cbd7ed8adc31fdb2.png) (http://ipv6-test.com)
Relevant information: http://nick.privatepaste.com/4796895a83
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2011/11/24/4c21c24138a20980a37d75efc6df7d08.png) (http://ipv6-test.com)
Relevant information: http://nick.privatepaste.com/416ae4b0f7
Where I am located at: Montevideo, Uruguay.
What I pay my ISP (AS6057) for: 3Mbps down/512Kbps up, 20GB monthly. (For anyone that's interested: http://www.antel.com.uy/antel/personas-y-hogares/internet/planes/adsl/adsl-por-trafico/adsl-20-giga)
And yes, I've tried playing around with my settings, nothing helps D:
Aditional speedtests: (http://www.speedtest.net/result/1609579768.png) (http://www.speedtest.net) & (http://www.speedtest.net/result/1609580577.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
*tips hat*
IPV6-Test.com Speedtest - Fremont Server
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2011/12/05/35aace3743ac8860c1eca747ed533856.png)
I know I have packet loss every so often on IPV6. I will look into it later.
(http://klank.org/images/PingTest.jpg)
Speedtest.net - SJC Smugmug
(http://speedtest.net/result/1628001965.png)
Ran this at home via my tunnel on tserv29.fmt1:
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2012/02/27/b055e8924a2cef5c01653ab4fd42c28c.png)
Here's mine using the Chicago tunnel server
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2012/02/27/6f07b636d9a31e3a1348cc64f2590e34.png)
Here's a stupid result. i get similar results every time i run this...
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2012/02/27/5859ab9467be54822b88d9e61ce050d4.png)
There appears to be a better route to the test server via IPv6.
ADSL
DownStream Connection Speed 7617 kbps
UpStream Connection Speed 1243 kbps
London tunnel -> France.
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2012/02/28/90d0a3be9cf622bc2b1f920ed9a505ee.png) (http://ipv6-test.com)
Alternative test site:
(http://i.imgur.com/kE6u2.png)
Ran this from sunny Scotland using the ipv6-test.com's European server, happy with the result considering my tunnel terminates at NYC.
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2012/03/16/de8b17e8e8a39e50afef84535341a56c.png)
Here's my result :
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2012/04/04/37782b8c0dc33115bf0f01b632a2c1bb.png)
Quite satisfied with the Amsterdam tunnel
Updated for my native IPv6 from Comcast:
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2012/06/06/64cea6b0210c75a996a5525128558a3d.png) (http://ipv6-test.com)
This is the new tunnel I setup. The tunnel server is tserv1.mci3 in Kansas City.
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2012/06/08/7a15a12d2a54f872f1c0b8ea30affa33.png) (http://ipv6-test.com)
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2012/06/08/b04a8503099f924e3bc8fed2f51a292c.png) (http://ipv6-test.com)(From home)
Well. finally got my IPv6 back online this morning. (Midnight) Better results than last year.
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2012/06/09/9814cf90425d833fd1309125dac9f1bb.png) (http://ipv6-test.com)
Hope to make it better when I change out some equipment.
Have a great day all.
Here is my test results. Im using COX in Orange County. Using the HE Los Angeles tunnel. A little disappointing.
(http://img2.ipv6-test.com/speedtest/result/2012/06/11/db485384bdeabefccc7bf6d07261dfbf.png) (http://ipv6-test.com)
Disappointing?? Never. The more on IPv6, the better. Hopefully, more will get moved over and more ISPs will convert.
I have a pretty decent connection from my provider, but, my numbers are pretty slow. I guess it's time to try to eliminate more old hardware and bring in some newer stuff.
LOL..
Im glad to support IPV6, and I want to help providers iron out issues that pop up.
Its a good problem to have, but not always easy to explain to folks why some sites seem to be slow or non-usable when they typically work fine (v4).
Ok I'm clearly doing something wrong as I consistently get results like this.
10 times slower on v6 than on v4.
I only noticed this yesterday when another member of my household that youtube videos were
starting and stopping and had been for a few days or possibly as long as a small number of weeks. Google
maps and other google applications are also affected. I've googled "youtube slow ipv6" and similar
and am now wondering about anycast dns servers, mtu cisco ios bugs involving tunnels, ip inspect, ecn.
I see several people on these forums reporting youtube slowness as well. I moved my HE tunnel
from Paris to London yesterday (I'm in the UK but London was full when I first set my tunnel up)
and it didn't seem to help.
I've also switched to just using the HE v6 and v6 DNS addresses: I'd been using my ISPs ones for years
but was suspcious about the "google whitelist" issue I'd seen mentioned here and there so it seemed
worth a try. It hasn't helped. Will it make things worse?
Quote from: ghira on July 13, 2012, 12:18:51 PM
I've also switched to just using the HE v6 and v6 DNS addresses: I'd been using my ISPs ones for years
but was suspcious about the "google whitelist" issue I'd seen mentioned here and there so it seemed
worth a try. It hasn't helped. Will it make things worse?
You should probably check your MTU settings.
AFAIK, google stopped dns whitelisting on World IPv6 Launch day.
Right now I do have problems playing videos on youtube. It is not just slow, they don't load at all. Everything else on the page loads, just the video is missing. Whatever problem I have also seems to affect facebook where certain features stopped working. On to do some debugging.
Quote from: Digiciti on July 13, 2012, 01:11:00 PMAFAIK, google stopped dns whitelisting on World IPv6 Launch day.
I believe that is correct.
I've done nothing overnight but now I get 3.7 megs on ipv6 on the same test page (consistently,
though of course it's now a different time of day)
I'm using:
ipv6 mtu 1452
on my router's tunnel0 (and on the HE config page).
(the ip mtu on my pppoa dialer interface is
ip mtu 1478 and I use ip tcp adjust-mss 1438
)
using ping6 -s (value) www.youtube.com
it works up to value = 1404
it's possible that my immediate problem has gone away for no particular reason
the beginning of "show ipv6 traffic" looks like this:
lounge#show ipv6 traffic
IPv6 statistics:
Rcvd: 762495 total, 9918 local destination
0 source-routed, 155 truncated
139 format errors, 50 hop count exceeded
0 bad header, 0 unknown option, 0 bad source
0 unknown protocol, 0 not a router
0 fragments, 0 total reassembled
0 reassembly timeouts, 0 reassembly failures
Sent: 11896 generated, 402539 forwarded
0 fragmented into 0 fragments, 0 failed
0 encapsulation failed, 0 no route, 486 too big
1286 RPF drops, 0 RPF suppressed drops
Mcast: 65 received, 849 sent
it seems plausible that the errors are mostly me trying to send overly big packets.
I am using IOS 15.1(4)M4 (advanced ip services) on a cisco 877.
I am happy enough with 3.7 megs of IPv6 but if there are errors in my config I'm all ears.
I did an ipv6 speed test (3.something megs again) and then very quickly did show proc cpu hist.
I think we have an explanation:
ghira#show proc cpu hist
ghira 06:29:36 PM Saturday Jul 14 2012 BST
999999999966666444445555544444 22222
311111222223333399999666666666666666666663333311111000007777
100 *****
90 **********
80 **********
70 ***************
60 *************** *****
50 ******************************
40 ******************************
30 ******************************
20 ****************************** *****
10 ****************************** *********
0....5....1....1....2....2....3....3....4....4....5....5....6
0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0
CPU% per second (last 60 seconds)
So 3.something megs of ip6 tunnelled in ip4 is enough to max out the cpu on my router,
it would seem.
Quote from: ghira on July 14, 2012, 10:32:20 AMSo 3.something megs of ip6 tunnelled in ip4 is enough to max out the cpu on my router,
it would seem.
The CPU usage is more likely dependent on the number of packets per second rather than the number of bytes per second. It might be that the IPv6 traffic uses smaller packets than IPv4. In many installations the IPv4 packet size is limited by the Ethernet MTU of 1500 bytes. But for IPv6 it might have been decided to use only 1280 bytes per packet, because the IPv6 standard guarantees that packet size can be sent without fragmentation.
The difference between 1500 and 1280 bytes isn't all that much, but if you are CPU bound, it matters. Also tunnelling is very likely to require more CPU time than just forwarding an IPv4 or an IPv6 packet. In fact since the packet is likely going through the IPv4 routing code once and through the IPv6 routing code once, I would guess the total CPU usage is the sum of the two. Assuming the IPv4 and IPv6 routing code are roughly the same speed, you will get only half the speed for tunnelled packets.
In total those factors could explain a factor of 2.3 more bytes per second with IPv4 than with an IPv6 tunnel. How large a difference do you see?
I get about 7 megs with ipv4. I think given that tunnelling creates work for the router,
as you say, what I'm getting now is probably fine. I think I've set the MTU as high
as I can without running into trouble.
Thank you for your advice. It does look as though the youtube problem that started
this must have been something external.
I am currently downloading a freebsd .iso image using v6 and my 877 says:
01:12:15 PM Sunday Jul 15 2012 BST
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999888886666688888888887777799999999999999999999999999999
100 ************************************************************
90 ************************************************************
80 ************************************************************
70 ************************************************************
60 ************************************************************
50 ************************************************************
40 ************************************************************
30 ************************************************************
20 ************************************************************
10 ************************************************************
0....5....1....1....2....2....3....3....4....4....5....5....6
0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0
CPU% per second (last 60 seconds)
looking at show proc cpu, standouts are:
255 904965 207927 4352 34.33% 34.67% 23.47% 0 IPv6 Input
105 536119 345553 1551 20.74% 19.92% 13.16% 0 IP Input
I see that I have "ipv6 virtual-reassembly" enabled on vlan1 and tunnel0. It seems to be
doing nothing:
#show ipv6 virtual-reassembly
All enabled IPv6 interfaces...
%Interface Tunnel0 [in]
IPv6 configured concurrent reassemblies (max-reassemblies): 64
IPv6 configured fragments per reassembly (max-fragments): 16
IPv6 configured reassembly timeout (timeout): 3 seconds
IPv6 configured drop fragments: OFF
IPv6 current reassembly count:0
IPv6 current fragment count:0
IPv6 total reassembly count:0
IPv6 total reassembly timeout count:0
%Interface Vlan1 [in]
IPv6 configured concurrent reassemblies (max-reassemblies): 64
IPv6 configured fragments per reassembly (max-fragments): 16
IPv6 configured reassembly timeout (timeout): 3 seconds
IPv6 configured drop fragments: OFF
IPv6 current reassembly count:0
IPv6 current fragment count:0
IPv6 total reassembly count:0
IPv6 total reassembly timeout count:0
yet if I remove it ipv6 seems to break.
looking at other postings I seem some people have it and some don't.
I am getting 5.6 megs of ipv6 traffic though:
show int tun0
Tunnel0 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is Tunnel
Description: Hurricane Electric IPv6 Tunnel Broker
MTU 17920 bytes, BW 1104 Kbit/sec, RxBW 15000 Kbit/sec, DLY 50000 usec,
reliability 255/255, txload 39/255, rxload 96/255
Encapsulation TUNNEL, loopback not set
Keepalive not set
Tunnel transport MTU 1458 bytes
Tunnel transmit bandwidth 1104 (kbps)
Tunnel receive bandwidth 15000 (kbps)
Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never
Last clearing of "show interface" counters never
Input queue: 34/75/2321/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0
30 second input rate 5658000 bits/sec, 475 packets/sec
30 second output rate 169000 bits/sec, 229 packets/sec
So this is better than my speed tests suggested I would get.
Speed tests are back down to 700 and something k, and so are downloads from freebsd.org,
and youtube is stuttering again. I don't think I've done anything in the meantime.
on my computer I see:
net.ipv6.conf.eth0.mtu = 1452
on my router on vlan1 and tunnel0 I have:
ipv6 mtu 1452
on dialer0 I have:
ip mtu 1478
I have the HE tunnel mtu set on the HE page to 1452 (I chose this as the highest thing
available at least 20 bytes smaller than 1478). I am using the London tunnel server.
"debug tunnel" output looks as I would expect; incoming ipv4 packets are 1472 bytes.
the router cpu is not maxing out while I get my 700k from youtube or freebsd.
What sort of thing am I doing wrong?
I have looked at e.g.
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/IPv6_with_Tunnel_Broker_Configuration_Example
I have ipv6 virtual-reassembly, ipv6 inspect as suggested there, but I am not currently
doing "ipv6 nd ra suppress"
my computer's ipv6 address is 2001:470:1f09:341:20f:b0ff:fecb:7fe0
Back to 3.something megs on speedtest site again and youtube goes over 1 meg on ipv6. Whatever
this is, I don't see how it can be me.