[lacnog] [v6ops] Windows CLAT Enters Private Preview: A Milestone for IPv6 Adoption | Microsoft Community Hub
Fernando Gont
fgont en si6networks.com
Dom Nov 23 21:03:16 -03 2025
Hola, Ale,
Entenderia que el 20%-40% era con un cliente pegandole a un servidor
dual stack. -- por otro lado, si el DC duera v6only y por acceder via v4
ubiera una traduccion extra, entonces... no deberian haber muchas
sorpresas...
Slds,
Fer
On 23/11/2025 12:51, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
> Hola Fer,
>
> Si, pero recuerda también puede haber NAT64/NAT46 en el otro extremo.
>
>
> Ale,
>
>
> On 23/11/25 11:45 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> Hola, Henri,
>>
>> Hay otra cuestion: Para asegurarse de la causa, el delay extra deberia
>> medirse en los primeros hops (donde se supone que existe la diferencia
>> causada por el NAT). SI lo medis e2e, hay pueden existir otra cantidad
>> de factores.
>>
>> Slds,
>> Fernando
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22/11/25 11:01, Henri Alves de Godoy vía LACNOG wrote:
>>>
>>> Para quem quiser testar o realizar os testes em suas residências, o
>>> arquivo curl-format.txt deve ter o conteúdo:
>>>
>>> time_namelookup: %{time_namelookup}
>>> time_connect: %{time_connect}
>>> time_appconnect: %{time_appconnect}
>>> time_pretransfer: %{time_pretransfer}
>>> time_starttransfer:%{time_starttransfer}
>>> time_total: %{time_total}
>>> size_download: %{size_download}
>>> speed_download: %{speed_download}
>>>
>>> Att,
>>> Henri.
>>>
>>> Em sáb., 22 de nov. de 2025 às 10:15, jordi.palet--- vía LACNOG
>>> <lacnog en lacnic.net <mailto:lacnog en lacnic.net>> escreveu:
>>>
>>> Gracias Henri,
>>>
>>> Solo me queda la duda de si la diferencia puede ser por la WiFi. Yo
>>> nunca hago pruebas de este tipo con Wifi, siempre con Ethernet,
>>> porque puede haber variaciones/interferencias en la radio incluso
>>> con pocos segundos de diferencia.
>>>
>>> Eso si, discrepo contigo en que los usuarios no lo notan … te
>>> aseguro que si, esa es la pelea de los operadores todos los días,
>>> especialmente con los gammers!
>>>
>>> Saludos,
>>> Jordi
>>>
>>> @jordipalet
>>>
>>>
>>>> El 22 nov 2025, a las 14:00, Henri Alves de Godoy
>>>> <henri.godoy en fca.unicamp.br <mailto:henri.godoy en fca.unicamp.br>>
>>>> escribió:
>>>>
>>>> Bom dia Jordi, Fernando e Alejandro,
>>>>
>>>> Aproveitando essa manhã de Sábado ensolarado, realizei um pequeno
>>>> teste básico a partir de minha residência, link Internet 600Mbps -
>>>> Operadora Claro, Notebook Windows 11, utilizando Wi-Fi,
>>>> dual-stack, IPv4 CGNAT. IPv6 global.
>>>>
>>>> Como destino está o website da Faculdade de Ciências Aplicadas -
>>>> UNICAMP - Dual Stack - Apache Server.
>>>>
>>>> Comando:
>>>>
>>>> curl -4 -L --resolve www.fca.unicamp.br:443:143.106.230.5 `
>>>> -o NUL -s -w "@curl-format.txt"
>>>> https://www.fca.unicamp.br/test/10m.bin
>>>> <https://www.fca.unicamp.br/test/10m.bin>
>>>>
>>>> curl -6 -L --resolve www.fca.unicamp.br:443:2801:8a:c040:fca0::5 `
>>>> -o NUL -s -w "@curl-format.txt"
>>>> https://www.fca.unicamp.br/test/10m.bin
>>>> <https://www.fca.unicamp.br/test/10m.bin>
>>>>
>>>> Parâmetros analisados:
>>>>
>>>> |time_connect|: handshake TCP
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> |time_appconnect|: handshake TLS (só em HTTPS)
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> |time_starttransfer| (TTFB): tempo até o primeiro byte
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> |time_total|: tempo total do download
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> |speed_download|: throughput final
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> Resultados:
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> IPv4
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> time_connect: 0.032 s
>>>> time_appconnect: 0.643 s
>>>> time_starttransfer:0.675 s
>>>> time_total: 5.923 s
>>>> speed_download: 1.77 MB/s
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> IPv6
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> time_connect: 0.043 s (quase igual ao IPv4)
>>>> time_appconnect: 0.101 s (mais rapido)
>>>> time_starttransfer:0.155 s (mais rápido)
>>>> time_total: 2.14 s (mais rápido)
>>>> speed_download: 4.89 MB/s
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> Analise:
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TLS handshake (time_appconnect):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IPv4 é 6,3 vezes mais lento no handshake
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IPv6: 0.101 s
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IPv4: 0.643 s
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> Tempo total (time_total):
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> IPv4: 5.92 s
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> IPv6: 2.14 s
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Throughput final
>>>>
>>>> IPv6 está entregando 2,8 vezes mais throughput.
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IPv6: 4.89 MB/s
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IPv4: 1.77 MB/s
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> É claro que é um teste único e seria interessante realizar uma
>>>> média de várias conexões.
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> Os usuários conseguem então ter um experiência melhor de
>>>> navegação ao consumir o website da Faculdade utilizando IPv6
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> Para um usuário normal e leigo, isso pode passar despercebido,
>>>> pois o objetivo é acessar o website. Para nós profissionais,
>>>> temos a certeza de que estamos proporcionando um acesso com
>>>> uma experiência melhor para os nossos alunos e visitantes.
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> Abraços !
>>>> Henri.
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Em sáb., 22 de nov. de 2025 às 07:07, jordi.palet--- vía LACNOG
>>>> <lacnog en lacnic.net <mailto:lacnog en lacnic.net>> escreveu:
>>>>
>>>> Hola Henri, Fernando,
>>>>
>>>> Creo que hablamos de diferentes mediciones … se trata de
>>>> comparar IPv6 nativo extremo a extremo (por ejemplo
>>>> residencial con IPv6-only y Facebook) con usuario residencial
>>>> que, en el mismo operador y con los mismos dispositivo (para
>>>> que sea comparable), tenga solo IPv4 y accede al mismo
>>>> contenido.
>>>>
>>>> He encontrado un paper, que quizás “contente" a Fernando,
>>>> seguramente hay muchos otros (yo recuerdo haber leído otros de
>>>> Akamai, Facebook y T-Mobile, pero ahora mismo no doy con ellos:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.moritzsteiner.de/papers/Mobicom_IPv6.pdf
>>>> <https://www.moritzsteiner.de/papers/Mobicom_IPv6.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> Lo he leído solo por encima, y no me queda claro si son las
>>>> mismas pruebas que yo he hecho, parece que al menos son
>>>> cercanas y comparables, solo que en red mobil. En este caso
>>>> compara casos de diferentes operadores y muestra diferencias
>>>> importantes entre ellos (por eso yo hago estas pruebas en mis
>>>> despliegues, para asegurar que es óptimo). Por ejemplo en el
>>>> caso de Verizon (el mejor de todos), incluso supera ese 40%
>>>> que yo indicaba y copio textualmente:
>>>>
>>>> In Figure 7(b), we observe similar reductions in PLTs for
>>>> pages loaded by Verizon’s IPv6 clients over Verizon’s IPv6
>>>> network. Specifically, we show that the median and 80% of the
>>>> PLTs by IPv6 clients over Verizon’s IPv6 network are 48% and
>>>> 64% faster than PLTs over its IPv4 network, because of the
>>>> significant differences in RTTs between Verizon’s IPv6 and
>>>> IPv4 networks as shown in Figure 4(b).
>>>>
>>>> Nota: PLT es Page Load Time, que creo que es equivalente a lo
>>>> que yo indicaba de “time to complete http get”.
>>>>
>>>> Hay otras partes del documento que por ejemplo indican mejoras
>>>> en T-Mobile (red "pura” IPv6-only) del RTT entre el 49 y el
>>>> 64%.
>>>>
>>>> El documento tiene muchas otras referencias, quizás algunas
>>>> sean de mediciones similares.
>>>>
>>>> Saludos,
>>>> Jordi
>>>>
>>>> @jordipalet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> El 21 nov 2025, a las 22:53, Henri Alves de Godoy vía LACNOG
>>>>> <lacnog en lacnic.net <mailto:lacnog en lacnic.net>> escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hola Fernando y Jordi,
>>>>>
>>>>> En LACNIC 34 , realizei um teste simples, realizando as
>>>>> traduções via 464XLAT utilizando o Jool, apresentaram
>>>>> pouquíssima variação de desempenho. Talvez isso ocorra porque
>>>>> o mecanismo de transição opera diretamente no kernel Linux,
>>>>> garantindo latências muito próximas entre IPv4 e IPv6, mesmo
>>>>> sob carga.
>>>>>
>>>>> Por curiosidade, realizarei outros em breve para comparar os
>>>>> cenários atualmente.
>>>>>
>>>>> Segue anexo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Abraços !
>>>>> Henri.
>>>>>
>>>>> Em sex., 21 de nov. de 2025 às 17:09, Fernando Gont
>>>>> <fgont en si6networks.com <mailto:fgont en si6networks.com>>
>>>>> escreveu:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hola, Jordi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21/11/2025 15:52, jordi.palet--- vía LACNOG wrote:
>>>>> > Hola Fernando,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > A mi FB nunca me dijo que tuviera dudas, y ademas
>>>>> Akamai y otros
>>>>> > hicieron las mismas mediciones y coincidían, y yo
>>>>> también lo he
>>>>> > comprobado en despliegues de clientes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Repito: Cuales son las referencias a las publicaciones?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Digo yo que tanta coincidencia,
>>>>> > por algo será, además de la lógica de tener o no
>>>>> multiples traducciones
>>>>> > que sabemos que son latencia adicional.
>>>>>
>>>>> Estamos hablando en serio?
>>>>>
>>>>> Se supone que si uno va a tirar datos, se tiene que
>>>>> entender, al menos
>>>>> por arriba, las condiciones y limitaciones del
>>>>> experimento, y en
>>>>> principio un analisis (con sustancia) que permita
>>>>> entender los
>>>>> resultados obtenidos.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respecto de las traducciones, alguien cuantifico la
>>>>> latencia, de forma
>>>>> mas o menos seria?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Fernando Gont
>>>>> SI6 Networks
>>>>> e-mail: fgont en si6networks.com
>>>>> <mailto:fgont en si6networks.com>
>>>>> PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D
>>>>> 663B B494
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LACNOG mailing list
>>>>> LACNOG en lacnic.net <mailto:LACNOG en lacnic.net>
>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>>>>> <https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog>
>>>>> Cancelar suscripcion:
>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
>>>>> <https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> <Screenshot_2.png>_______________________________________________
>>>>> LACNOG mailing list
>>>>> LACNOG en lacnic.net <mailto:LACNOG en lacnic.net>
>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>>>>> <https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog>
>>>>> Cancelar suscripcion:
>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
>>>>> <https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **********************************************
>>>> IPv4 is over
>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>>> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/>
>>>> The IPv6 Company
>>>>
>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be
>>>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be
>>>> for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and
>>>> further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,
>>>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even
>>>> if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited
>>>> and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
>>>> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
>>>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even
>>>> if partially, including attached files, is strictly
>>>> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must
>>>> reply to the original sender to inform about this
>>>> communication and delete it.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LACNOG mailing list
>>>> LACNOG en lacnic.net <mailto:LACNOG en lacnic.net>
>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>>>> <https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog>
>>>> Cancelar suscripcion:
>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
>>>> <https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> **********************************************
>>> IPv4 is over
>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com>
>>> The IPv6 Company
>>>
>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
>>> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive
>>> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
>>> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
>>> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is
>>> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If
>>> you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
>>> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,
>>> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited,
>>> will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
>>> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LACNOG mailing list
>>> LACNOG en lacnic.net <mailto:LACNOG en lacnic.net>
>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>>> <https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog>
>>> Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
>>> <https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LACNOG mailing list
>>> LACNOG en lacnic.net
>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>>> Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont en si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494
Más información sobre la lista de distribución LACNOG