Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Bad\s+performance\s+when\s+using\s+IPv4\s+and\s+IPv6\s+together\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. Bad performance when using IPv4 and IPv6 together (score: 1)
Author: Brad Chapman <kakadu_croc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
Whenever I compile the 2.4.8 kernel's IPv6 stack monolithically, or when I load it as a module, the system's networking speed slows dramatically. TCP and UDP connections take an immensely long time,
/archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00093.html (8,065 bytes)

2. Re: Bad performance when using IPv4 and IPv6 together (score: 1)
Author: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:27:53 +0200
Have you only tested ICMP using ping? I was observing odd behaviour of ping6 also but suspect it's actually ping6. So for example ping6 behaves different for me depending if I give it a hostname or a
/archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00094.html (8,932 bytes)

3. RE: Bad performance when using IPv4 and IPv6 together (score: 1)
Author: Brad Chapman <kakadu_croc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 05:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Mr. Elias, AFAIK, an IPv6-only network called the 6bone does exist; one of the coreteam members talked about it early on. Right now, though, the only two reasons why anyone would run IPv6 is to devel
/archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00095.html (8,494 bytes)

4. Re: Bad performance when using IPv4 and IPv6 together (score: 1)
Author: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:37:55 +0200
6bone has been found to survive routing problems in the underlying IPv4 structure used to interconnect IPv6 islands rather well so some people already (try to ...) rely on it. Ralf
/archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00096.html (8,761 bytes)

5. Re: Bad performance when using IPv4 and IPv6 together (score: 1)
Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:24:08 +0400 (MSK DST)
DNS. Reversed resolutions for IPv6 are _damnly_ slow. By default ping6 from iputils disables reversed resolution, when you give numeric address. No matter: net results obtained with ping/ping6 from
/archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00097.html (8,226 bytes)

6. Re: Bad performance when using IPv4 and IPv6 together (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:44:23 -0300 (BRST)
I rely on it ;) At times I have as much as 30% packet loss between two hosts on ipv4, or the routing table entry in one of the 20 in-between hops is gone completely. In these situations, ipv6 takes m
/archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00102.html (8,713 bytes)

7. Bad performance when using IPv4 and IPv6 together (score: 1)
Author: Brad Chapman <kakadu_croc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
Everyone, Whenever I compile the 2.4.8 kernel's IPv6 stack monolithically, or when I load it as a module, the system's networking speed slows dramatically. TCP and UDP connections take an immensely l
/archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00254.html (8,080 bytes)

8. Re: Bad performance when using IPv4 and IPv6 together (score: 1)
Author: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:27:53 +0200
Have you only tested ICMP using ping? I was observing odd behaviour of ping6 also but suspect it's actually ping6. So for example ping6 behaves different for me depending if I give it a hostname or a
/archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00255.html (9,047 bytes)

9. RE: Bad performance when using IPv4 and IPv6 together (score: 1)
Author: Brad Chapman <kakadu_croc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 05:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Mr. Elias, AFAIK, an IPv6-only network called the 6bone does exist; one of the coreteam members talked about it early on. Right now, though, the only two reasons why anyone would run IPv6 is to devel
/archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00256.html (8,579 bytes)

10. Re: Bad performance when using IPv4 and IPv6 together (score: 1)
Author: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:37:55 +0200
6bone has been found to survive routing problems in the underlying IPv4 structure used to interconnect IPv6 islands rather well so some people already (try to ...) rely on it. Ralf
/archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00257.html (8,946 bytes)

11. Re: Bad performance when using IPv4 and IPv6 together (score: 1)
Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:24:08 +0400 (MSK DST)
Hello! DNS. Reversed resolutions for IPv6 are _damnly_ slow. By default ping6 from iputils disables reversed resolution, when you give numeric address. No matter: net results obtained with ping/ping6
/archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00258.html (8,255 bytes)

12. Re: Bad performance when using IPv4 and IPv6 together (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:44:23 -0300 (BRST)
I rely on it ;) At times I have as much as 30% packet loss between two hosts on ipv4, or the routing table entry in one of the 20 in-between hops is gone completely. In these situations, ipv6 takes m
/archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00263.html (8,772 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu