Hey guys I recently bought the so called best gaming broadband vivid 350 fibre etc. Advertised as the fastest gaming broadband on the market. This is not true FACT Xbox are now running ipv6 addresses through there live gameplay which gives you lower ping and latency. Overall what this means let say on multiplayer is that in a shoot out your most likely to win in games like call of duty etc. Virgins speed is 350 Download with the actuall download speed having nothing to do with actual multiplayer speed with only an upload speed of 20.
All that said without an ipv6 address the upload speed and latency and reaction speed on multiplayer games will be way slower using virgins ip4 address.
BT and sky are now running ipv6 addresses and upload speeds of 60 upload with the download speed as I said adding nothing to multiplayer.
Purchasing virgins gaming is a complete rip off without An Ipv6 address anyone telling me it is the same our talking s*** I play competitive pro tournament's with everyone agreeing ip4 broadband slows you down on multiplayer.
All virgin gaming customers should be refunded in my opinion.
Xbox lives official statement is that if you want the best online experience is to change your broadband to ipv6 why are virgin still advertising the fastest gaming broadband in the UK?.
And why won't they change to ipv6 like sky and bt and all the other companies I'm guessing if you took this further virgin would have to refund all gamers OMG SORT IT OUT VIRGIN.
Just as an aside can you show me where BT or SKY are offering 60 up?
Why would a "pro gamer" NEED 60 up? A twitch streamer may need 10 or 20 up, a gamer needs 5 and low latency/ low jitter. You do understand how multiplayer works yeah? You do get that speed tests dont actually measure gaming latency?
I sincerely doubt that IPv6 will increase your download speed / upload speed, or improve latency, at least not until we are in a world where IPv6 is the only IP. You're still forced to use the same infrastructure as IPv4 currently, so where are the gains? If anything you might be adding latency through 6to4 and other tunneling methods. The protocol stack was designed to be a little quicker, but not that noticeable.
As others have said, you don't need ridiculous upload speeds or download speeds, especially if you're not hosting. The main thing is low jitter and low bandwidth.
There's still a couple of problems as you would need new hardware and move to Sweden, not to mention the strain it would put on your hardware as well as cost. Even then it may not work. This guy does it for a job (he's quite entertaining) and cost is usually mentioned...
Facebook measured their site as loading 10-15% faster over v6, so there's that. Even though you're using the same infrastructure, the routes taken by v4 and v6 traffic can be different and can have different latencies.
(You're not going to be seeing 6to4 when using native v6. For one thing, 6to4 has lower priority than both native v6 and v4 and is only used if neither of those are available for a given connection.)
That said, the primary benefit is not needing to use NAT. NAT is a giant pain in the rear for gaming and causes a ton of problems which all go away if you're not using it. NAT also encourages handling game communications via relay servers hosted by the game publisher, which adds a bunch of latency and means you've got problems if they ever go out of business or decide the game isn't profitable enough to support any more.