[lokedhs]

I see the opposite right now, with transfer rates being about the same but latency over IPv4 being quite bad compared to IPv6:

Pinging www.google.com with IPv6:

    $ ping www.google.com
    PING www.google.com(sc-in-x67.1e100.net (2404:6800:4003:c02::67)) 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from sc-in-f103.1e100.net (2404:6800:4003:c02::67): icmp_seq=1 ttl=108 time=4.46 ms
    64 bytes from sc-in-x67.1e100.net (2404:6800:4003:c02::67): icmp_seq=2 ttl=108 time=3.73 ms
    64 bytes from sc-in-f103.1e100.net (2404:6800:4003:c02::67): icmp_seq=3 ttl=108 time=3.73 ms

And with IPv4:

    $ ping -4 www.google.com
    PING  (142.250.186.100) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from fra24s06-in-f4.1e100.net (142.250.186.100): icmp_seq=1 ttl=107 time=317 ms
    64 bytes from fra24s06-in-f4.1e100.net (142.250.186.100): icmp_seq=2 ttl=107 time=317 ms
    64 bytes from fra24s06-in-f4.1e100.net (142.250.186.100): icmp_seq=3 ttl=107 time=317 ms

I have no idea why that happens. It's not on all sites though, so it's not like my ISP adds latecy to all IPv4 sites, but rather something to do with routing. The IPv4 traffic might be routed to a google datacentre further away.

[ikiris]

Looks like you've got some geolocation issues, because you went across the globe for that v4 route lol.

[kazen44]

theoretically, ipv6 routing itself is far faster because the header is far simpler to parse.

also, the ipv6 space is far less fragmented then ipv4. this could lead to more direct routing aswell.