From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-23-ewr.dyndns.com (mxout-099-ewr.mailhop.org [216.146.33.99]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15CC42E01B8 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 07:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scan-21-ewr.mailhop.org (scan-21-ewr.local [10.0.141.243]) by mail-23-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 442DA3F617 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:35:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 () X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 149.20.54.64 Received: from mainmail.teklibre.com (toutatis.isc.org [149.20.54.64]) by mail-23-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2D843B51 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mainmail.teklibre.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C6812B75A for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mainmail.teklibre.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (toutatis.sql1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BN2D+5T895vp for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2002:47a2:f305:1::2] (unknown [IPv6:2002:47a2:f305:1::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: d) by mainmail.teklibre.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07E0A12B759 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DA4633A.7040204@taht.net> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:35:38 -0600 From: Dave Taht User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Bismark-devel] some 6to4 testing X-BeenThere: bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: BISMark related software development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:35:56 -0000 I've had a chance to do some basic testing of the most recent build of bismark at eric's place. The good news: Most everything works great. So, after getting 6to4 to work (see: http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/80 ) And having a few ongoing issues with multicast (still - see bug #81) I did a bit of performance testing using iperf, over the wired interface. I was seeing about 20% difference in speed on these two tests over comcast, between the 2002 and 2001 networks. Over FIOS... well.... IPv4 TEST: d@cruithne:~$ iperf -t 60 -c huchra.bufferbloat.net ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to huchra.bufferbloat.net, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 192.168.1.181 port 56963 connected with 149.20.54.237 port 5001 [ 3] 0.0-60.0 sec 176 MBytes 24.5 Mbits/sec d@cruithne:~$ iperf -t 60 -V -c huchra.bufferbloat.net ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to huchra.bufferbloat.net, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 2002:47a2:f305:1::2 port 34130 connected with 2001:4f8:3:36:2e0:81ff:fe49:2cfe port 5001 [ 3] 0.0-63.6 sec 3.48 MBytes 459 Kbits/sec It's about 165 ms to huchra via the nearest 6to4 router on FIOS (vs about 85ms on ipv4). BUT WOW, what a hit for "native <-> 6in4"! Factor of 53 difference. Going pure 6in4 replicates the result ratio I was getting with comcast: d@cruithne:~$ iperf -V -t 60 -c 2002:9514:3640:36:2e0:81ff:fe23:90d3 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 2002:9514:3640:36:2e0:81ff:fe23:90d3, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 2002:47a2:f305:1::2 port 37667 connected with 2002:9514:3640:36:2e0:81ff:fe23:90d3 port 5001 ^[[B[ 3] 0.0-60.2 sec 160 MBytes 22.3 Mbits/sec Which basically accounts for the size of the ack packets being larger and leveraging the existing ipv4 routing scheme.