[158065] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Nov 20 11:48:26 2012
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAas8H+pMp_o5ryDVhad83zGBKZz+T2sqC0DtVMxk_xV9kWBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:48:08 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:42 , Mike Jones <mike@mikejones.in> wrote:
> =08On 20 November 2012 16:05, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> =
wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2012, at 08:45 , Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low =
for a number
>>> of reasons.
>>=20
>> AMS-IX publishes stats too:
>> <https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/>
>>=20
>> This is probably a better view of overall percentage on the Internet =
than a specific company's content. It shows order of 0.5%.
>>=20
>> Why do you think Google's numbers are lower than the real total?
>>=20
>=20
> They are also different stats which is why they give such different =
numbers.
>=20
> In a theoretical world with evenly distributed traffic patterns if 1%
> of users were IPv6 enabled it would require 100% of content to be IPv6
> enabled before your traffic stats would show 1% of traffic going over
> IPv6.
>=20
> If these figures are representative (google saying 1% of users and
> AMSIX saying 0.5% of traffic) then it would indicate that dual stacked
> users can push ~50% of their traffic over IPv6. If this is even close
> to reality then that would be quite an achievement.
There is even more complexity. Remember the 6-to-4 stuff? Suppose a =
user on Network A used a tunnel broker on HE, and his traffic passed =
over AMS-IX encapsulated in v4? He would show up as v4 to AMS-IX and v6 =
to Google.
Lies, damned lies, and graphs. :)
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
