[182077] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Also Facebook (was: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nicholas Suan)
Fri Jul 10 02:01:10 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <op.x1jju7yutfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:01:05 -0400
From: Nicholas Suan <nsuan@nonexiste.net>
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
You should elaborate on some of these 'holes' then.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 21:48:06 -0400, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
>>
>> Both techniques indicate more than 20% of the US Internet users are
>> connecting via IPv6.
>
>
> Interesting method that's full of holes (and they know it), but it's data
> nonetheless.
>
> Globally, it's still ~4.5%. Within my own pool of providers, I'm ZERO for=
5.
> (I've not pinged TWC-BC lately, 'tho. And no one has gotten back to me th=
at
> Earthlink has provided TWC with any prefixes, so us Earthlink cable inter=
net
> customers are still dark.)
>
>> (They=E2=80=99ve also observing a significant performance
>> improvement with IPv6 connected users over IPv4 connected...
>
>
> IPv4 tends to be NAT'd and aggressively proxied. I also wouldn't rule out=
v6
> taking a different path, but that wouldn't explain the magnitude of
> difference those slides would suggest. (not really readable via youtube)
