Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Latency wise, I am not noticing any difference (at least in ICMP).

ycombinator@Mainframe:~$ ping 8.8.8.8

PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=24.3 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=119 time=24.1 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=119 time=23.9 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=119 time=23.9 ms

^C --------------- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --------------------

4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 23.901/24.053/24.291/0.157 ms

ycombinator@Mainframe:~$ ping6 2001:4860:4860::8844

PING 2001:4860:4860::8844 (2001:4860:4860::8844) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=1 ttl=118 time=23.5 ms

64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=2 ttl=118 time=24.0 ms

64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=3 ttl=118 time=23.9 ms

64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=4 ttl=118 time=24.0 ms

^C ------- 2001:4860:4860::8844 ping statistics -------------------

4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3005ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 23.517/23.845/24.008/0.200 ms



There is no inherent added latency. That only applies for the translation layer, when there is no native support.


OP was making the case that CGNAT adds to the latency in some significant way. Yes it adds latency, but it is of negligible concern.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: