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