> Yes, I think it's a good example of how IPv4 routing and connectivity is just > better (still). Also, I think there are some local IPv6 problems by the > monitoring server I am trying to figure out with the help of the bandwidth > provider.
This is why I wonder what other monitor stations say. > Best round trip is almost the same as the IPv4 path (186.3ms), but the > average is 194.7 and the slowest is 201.8ms. Much harder to get an accurate > time if each packet can take that much different time. It would be important to clarify if this is a general effect or affects LA monitor point only. In former case NTP over IPv6 should not be recommended in general. Gabor _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
