[187128] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jan 20 13:45:35 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160120124100.GE1038@57.rev.meerval.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:42:43 -0800
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>, nanog-isp@mail.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 04:41 , Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:32:11PM +0100, nanog-isp@mail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Jared Mauch wrote:
>>> I currently see around 56.4:1 with the timing of peaks the same in =
v4 and v6.
>> So that's more in line with AMS-IX (70G/4T) than Comcast/Swisscom
>> then. AMS-IX:
>> https://ams-ix.net/technical/statistics/sflow-stats/ipv6-traffic
>=20
> I propose the following axiom: the greater the distance over which a
> packet is forwarded, the less likely it is to be an IPv6 packet.
>=20
> Kind regards,
>=20
> Job
I=E2=80=99m not sure that is the issue so much as packets outside of =
North
America are less likely to be IPv6 packets than packets traversing
networks entirely within North America.
Packets outside of North America and Europe are less likely than
packets within those two continents.
Asia is more likely than Mexico or Africa, and about equally likely
with most of South America.
I can see how this circumstance could lead one to believe that there
is a correlation with distance, but I draw the distinction because
I want to avoid the introduction of =E2=80=9CPost hoc ergo propter =
hoc=E2=80=9D
based errors into decisions about how to improve the situation.
Owen
