[84377] in North American Network Operators' Group
IPv6 traffic numbers [was: Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Leinen)
Mon Sep 12 09:59:39 2005
To: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme@multicasttech.com>
Cc: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, nanog@nanog.org,
Stanislav Shalunov <shalunov@internet2.edu>
From: Simon Leinen <simon@limmat.switch.ch>
In-Reply-To: <web-2970830@multicasttech.com> (Marshall Eubanks's message of
"Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:42:53 -0400")
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:59:00 +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
[CC'ing Stanislav Shalunov, who does the Internet2 weekly reports.]
Marshall Eubanks writes, in response to Jordi's "8% IPv6" anecdote:
> These estimates seem way high and need support. Here is a counter-example.
While I'm also skeptical about the representativeness of Jordi's
estimates, this is a bad counterexample (see below about why):
> Netflow on Internet 2 for last week
> http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/20050829/
> has 6.299 Gigabytes being sent by IPv6, out of a total 383.2
> Terabytes, or 0.0016% This is backbone traffic, and would not catch
> intra-Campus traffic, nor would it catch tunnel or VPN traffic,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
Wrong. What you see here is ONLY tunnel traffic, because the number
is for IPv6-in-IPv4 (IP protocol 41) traffic.
Netflow for IPv6 isn't widely used yet. Our own equipment doesn't
support it, and I don't think the Junipers used in Abilene do, either
(someone please correct me if I'm wrong).
> but it is suggestive.
Yes, but it's also irrelevant, because Abilene has native IPv6, so
there is little incentive for sending IPv6 tunneled in IPv4.
> According to the graph
> http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/longit/perc-protocols41-octets.png
> the most I2 IPv6 traffic was in 2002, when it was almost 0.6% of the total.
I would assume that that was before IPv6 went native on Abilene.
> It is hard for me to imagine that the situation for commerical US
> traffic is much different.
I'm sure there's less
> There may be similar statistics for Geant - I would be interested to
> see them.
I'll look up the GEANT numbers in a minute, stay tuned.
--
Simon.
