[108867] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Another driver for v6?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tore Anderson)
Fri Oct 31 08:45:11 2008
From: Tore Anderson <tore@linpro.no>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:45:05 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20081029232940.GC5212@isc.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
* David W. Hankins
> It is almost lunacy to deploy IPv6 in a customer-facing sense (note
> for example Google's choice to put its AAAA on a separate FQDN). At
> this point, I'd say people are still trying to figure out how clients
> will migrate to IPv6. Which seems like a pretty bad time to still be
> trying to figure that out, but ohwell.
Google has been testing this a bit on their main pages. Select quotes
from the presentation of their results:
> 0.238% of users have useful IPv6 connectivity (and prefer IPv6)
> 0.09% of users have broken IPv6 connectivity
The summary disagrees with you about the =C2=ABalmost lunacy=C2=BB part:
> It's not that broken
> - ~0.09% clients lost, ~150ms extra latency - don't believe the FUD
The slides are here, they're worth a look in my opinion:
http://rosie.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-57/presentations/uploads/Thursday/=
Plenary 14:00/upl/Colitti-Global_IPv6_statistics_-_Measuring_the_current_st=
ate_of_IPv6_for_ordinary_users.xD5A.pdf
Best regards,
=2D-=20
Tore Anderson
