On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:59:00 +0200 Simon Leinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [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. >
Simon is correct. The numbers I quoted were for protocol 41 traffic, and presumably more IPv6 is "hidden in plain sight" on the Internet 2 backbone. Sorry for the confusion. Regards Marshall > 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. >
