[75529] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Mon Nov 15 11:06:13 2004
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:03:56 -0500
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
To: Christian Kuhtz <christian.kuhtz@BellSouth.com>
Cc: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <BDBE2775.AE1E%christian.kuhtz@bellsouth.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 09:29:25AM -0500, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/15/04 12:18 AM, "Daniel Roesen" <dr@cluenet.de> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunate, even today there are not many option of transit ISPs
> > who have a real native dual-stack deployment (I consider 6PE to be
> > native)... most have just tunnels inside. Currently I cannot think
> > of more than... hm... 3-4 ISPs who can deliver real amounts of
> > native US-EU bandwidth.
>
> What sort of customers do these v6 SP's have for IPv6? What demands are
> there for real amounts of IPv6 bandwidth?
I've historically found that there are a number of FTP
sites that get congested on IPv4 but are accessable via IPv6 (only).
I have a /48 at home, but am only using about 4 /64's on my various
subnets (servers, wireless, office lan, etc..)
I'd say that about 1-5% of my home bandwidth usage (on average)
is IPv6 only. I'm sure it's going up with the number of sites doing
v4+v6 (eg: roots) increasing.
- jared
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
