TZUTC: -0400   
   MSGID: 149.fidonet_ipv6@1:142/103 25a74e16   
   REPLY: 2:280/5555 6141e290   
   PID: Synchronet 3.18a-Linux  Aug 23 2020 GCC 6.3.0   
   TID: SBBSecho 3.11-Linux r3.177 Aug 23 2020 GCC 6.3.0   
   CHRS: ASCII 1   
   Michiel;   
      
   -=> Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Victor Sudakov <=-   
      
    MvV> A tunnel is good, native IPv6 is better. I noticed it too when I used   
    MvV> tunnels. IPv6 over the tunnel is significantky slower than IPv4. Up to   
    MvV> 50% slower. Native IPv6 is always preferable so we we should all keep   
    MvV> perstering our ISPs about IPv6.   
      
   If  you were getting that much of a slowdown, something else was going on.   
   Granted the MTU is slightly and I mean slightly less than native IPv6 or   
   IPv4, but it's only by 20 bytes/1500 byte packet. Doing the math, this does   
   NOT equal a 50% lag. Maybe the issue is that your ISP's path to your IPv6   
   tunnel provider is not an optimum path? Mine is just a couple hops away   
   so it's not an issue for me.   
      
    MvV> As I said: native is preferable, but a tunnel is better than no IPv6 at   
    MvV> all.   
      
   This is true.   
      
   ... So eager to play, so reluctant to admit it   
   --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52   
    * Origin: SBBS - Carnage! 2001:470:8a1e::3 (1:142/103)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/19 123 16/0 90/1 105/81 120/340 123/130 131 142/0 103 203/0   
   SEEN-BY: 221/0 226/30 227/702 229/424 426 428 550 664 700 240/5138   
   SEEN-BY: 240/5411 5824 5832 5853 249/206 317 400 261/38 280/464 5555   
   SEEN-BY: 282/1038 301/1 310/31 317/3 320/119 219 319 322/0 757 342/200   
   SEEN-BY: 633/280 2454/119   
   PATH: 142/103 320/219 240/5832 229/426