In my experience of comparing traceroute6
vs. traceroute
, IPv6 is faster, even through a tunnel broker. This is probably because IPv6 generally requires fewer hops to get from point A to B.
Here's a third-party source backing up my observation:
Accessing sites and content over the Internet is usually faster with IPv6 than with IPv4 because with the new protocol it requires fewer "hops" between network nodes
Here is a little experiment I ran using
traceroute
/
traceroute6
,
ping
/
ping6
, and my Hurricane (tunnelbroker.net) tunnel, gathering the sites with both IPv6 and IPv6 capabilities from
http://test-ipv6.com:
SITE IPv4 hops IPv6 hops IPv4 ping (min/avg/max/mdev ms) IPv6 ping (min/avg/max/mdev ms)
6connect.com 14 8 67.253/72.499/106.113/11.265 55.031/58.340/74.078/5.426
bind.com 13 10 45.450/53.924/98.121/15.158 60.002/82.812/196.221/41.448
comcast6.net >13 10 - 92.043/92.840/94.055/0.680
delong.com 11 7 59.059/66.432/95.884/10.134 52.423/73.042/135.103/30.874
mozilla.org >11 6 33.178/97.481/536.719/148.432 45.562/47.133/48.390/0.805
test-ipv6.chi.vr.org 9 9 85.383/286.941/527.103/155.351 76.788/169.458/516.502/147.166
test-ipv6.com 10 5 34.021/39.507/70.518/10.384 33.009/41.441/70.052/13.069
test-ipv6.iad.vr.org 15 13 86.739/93.772/120.192/10.195 91.341/93.146/97.153/2.006
test-ipv6.motd.be >14 8 86.186/401.432/1629.098/502.373 92.437/481.830/727.557/241.649
test-ipv6.sjc.vr.org 12 6 35.443/40.502/70.426/10.056 33.953/41.144/85.444/14.862
tunnelbroker.net >9 >4 39.504/46.119/73.483/10.290 32.559/63.532/222.700/62.022
So, indeed, IPv6 uses fewer hops and is overall no worse, if not slightly better, performance-wise than IPv4, even though my IPv6 is going through a tunnel.