Hi, Fred:
0) Thanks for sharing your references to IPv6 statistics.
1) However, you might have looked this topic too deeply and missed
the overview. Through our study of EzIP, we have discovered two aspects
of this topic that frequently mislead readers:
A. IPv6 equipment */Capability/* vs. IPv6 traffic */Volume/*:
The former is about equipment "readiness". The latter is about the
actual traffic "amount". High value of the former does not necessarily
imply the same to the latter. Without explicitly stating which one is
being presented, wasteful debates based on these numbers persist. In
fact, this is where the big smoke screen that our team had to go through
to finally see more clearly about the true reference that we have to
base upon.
B. The scope of the candidates for the source data set:
Comparisons of the incident type needs to find the largest domain, not
several sub-domains, to extract data from. This is important because an
author can pick up a few datasets that support the "theory", while
overlooking others that may be more significant and introduce counter
views. This is also tricky, because how can one tell which type of
domain is bigger than the others? Since we are discussing a global
event, any domain that implies worldwide coverage is much more
trustworthy than multiple full datasets, each is country-based .
2) Although all of your citations contain "IPv6", some even include
"status", none of them clearly defines which one of the two choices in
Pt. 1) A. it is referring to. Except, the browser tab of the following
reads "IPv6 */Capability/* Metrics". This confirms, at least to me, that
you have been looking at Capabilities instead of Volume. The former
tends to show much higher numbers because it is just a report of how
many devices online are ready to use IPv6 (I heard that such indication
is carried in the IP packet somewhere?). This is because when users
actually use IPv6, it then contributes to the Volume statistics.
https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1&s=1&p=1&w=30&c=IN
3) Allow me to share with you the IPv6 statistics that we have been
following. On top of the two criteria in Pt. 1) above, we also look for
consistency through time, i.e., track records such as how long and how
frequently the data is updated.
A. IPv6 Deployment / Readiness: The following has been updated
every few days for quite sometime. Whatever metrics that it is based
upon, we can assume that it is applied worldwide. This appears to be a
superset of what you cited.
https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/
B. IPv6 Traffic Volume: There was an annual report series by
Cisco. But, the last one was in 2017. We could not find any later
versions. Interestingly, Cisco TechSupport confirmed so.
https://cloud.report/Resources/Whitepapers/eea79d9b-9fe3-4018-86c6-3d1df813d3b8_white-paper-c11-741490.pdf
4) These days, we primarily monitor the following two statistics to
keep up with the IPv6 performance status:
A. Google IPv6 Adoption: This is a daily report that goes back
to 2008 Oct. The current peak is around 38%, while the average is around
36%. Also, a very interesting phenomenon can be observed if you zoom
into a small segment of the graph. It shows the weekly fluctuations that
peak during weekends or holidays when users are mostly accessing Google
services from homes. In fact, the lock-down during the COVID-19 pandemic
pushed the average up notably. Although this is only within Google, it
is a worldwide statistics. More importantly, Google is one of the
stronger IPv6 promoters. Similar statistics from other business should
logically be capped by this graph.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
B. AMS-IX Traffic Statistics: There are various measurements
that are constantly (between every 7 to 15 minutes) updated. The URL
below leads you to a set of composite graphs showing the percentages of
various type of protocols being transported through AMS-IX. What you
will find in the below graph is that IPv6 Traffic is only around 4.5%
which is in the 10% range of that in the Google graph above.
https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html
5) Pt. 4) B. is a surprise statistics. We have not been able to
pin-point exactly how could this happen. Two factors should be kept in mind:
A. AMS-IX may not be the largest IX (Internet eXchange), but
their operation is worldwide. They are the only business of this kind
that has been providing the continuous reports (This kind of reports
have been going on for ages. AMS-IX does not provide archived data. But,
you can search Archive.org for historical data as far back as 2010-06.).
So, we believe that this is more reliable than others.
B. IX businesses take the overflow traffic from Internet
backbone carriers' peering arrangements. So, the ratio between IPv4 and
IPv6 could be different from the bulk in the core. However, one
historical event (see URL below) hints that the IPv6 traffic on AMS-IX
should have been even lower than what is reported if its peering
agreements had been settled in a similar manner as those for IPv4.
https://www.theregister.com/2018/08/28/ipv6_peering_squabbles/
Hope this run-down of background and history enable us to synchronize
our perspective of the IPv6 status.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-14 14:04)
------------------------------
NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 15
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:06:51 -0700
From: Fred Baker<fredbaker.i...@gmail.com>
To: Joe Maimon<jmai...@jmaimon.com>, "Chen, Abraham Y."
<ayc...@alum.mit.edu>, "Abraham Y. Chen"<ayc...@avinta.com>, Ca By
<cb.li...@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG<nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List
Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use
of 240/4, NetBlock))
Message-ID:<7e0b159f-43ac-4507-8fb9-3120b2b90...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mar 11, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Joe Maimon<jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote:
Google's statistics...
I'm not sure which of you I'm replying to. The comment was made on NANOG the
other day that we should discount Google statistics because they have been
promoting IPv6 for a decade. It's true that they have been doing so. But they
aren't the only people with statistics.
https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=in,my,sa,be,de,fr,gr,vn,tw,gf,zz,us,jp,th,br,mx,ae,lk,uy,hu,lu,fi,il,pt,gt,ch,gp,gb,mq,nl,ca,ee,ec,re,au,np,tt,at,ro,ga,ie,no,gy,bt,py,pe,kw,sx,mm,nz,co,cz,bo,ni,tg,ph,pl,sg,is,ar,kr,om,cl,sv,jm,si,mo,se,lv,jo,cg,ba,lc,zw,ir,id,md,hn,by,sk,al,rw,pf,ge,bz,dk,ru,hr,rs,it,vc,ke
You might look at the following links. Eric Vyncke has been putting up charts
basically on Google, Akamai, and APNIC statistics for a while. One thing to
consider is that around 90 countries (92 in this capture, as low as 89 a couple
of days ago) have 5% or greater response rate using IPv6. Google and Akamai
have their own content networks, and in at least some countries only
externalize AAAA records or respond to IPv6 requests. APNI isn't that way; they
don't operate a content network, but rather accept traffic from across the
backbone. Consider that a content network essentially reports traffic from a
customer network to their first hop ISP, while when APNIC reports an IPv6
access, the father form APNIC to the collector in question has to include every
network and every router in the path. Now look at these:
https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=in
https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=k&countries=in
https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1&s=1&p=1&w=30&c=IN
I think the APNIC numbers demonstrate that paths through the backbone generally
support IPv6 end to end, and that from a routing perspective there is no reason
to favor IPv4.
There are 8 Countries (this evening) that Google reports roughly equal response
rates from using IPv4 or IPv6.
cfhttps://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=in,my,sa,be,de,fr,gr,vn.
This doesn't prove that IPv6 has taken over the world, but it does prove that
those who would discount available statistics sources are a little too shrill in
doing so.
Where IPv6 has a problem today is with enterprise. IMHO, this is basically
because enterprise is looking at the bottom line. If ISPs were to do what
Mythic Beasts says they do, which is charge their users for address space, IPv6
is virtually free while IPv4 costs something. I suspect that enterprise would
change its tune dramatically.
------------------------------
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
