This W8 still manages to confuse me. So sorry for the missing real name in the
previous mail.
My server is currently in fr zone and I’m seeing something like 2 queries every
10 minutes or so with IPv6. So in principal the IPv6 side is completely dead.
IPv4 on the opposite is very active. Both of these have same bandwidth setting
and server share in fr zone seems to be 227/66 in the favor of IPv4.
From occupational history point of view I wouldn’t mind getting more IPv6
traffic and I actually would expect to get more, even that IPv6 deployment is
still where it is..
--
Markku Miettinen
From: James Hartig
Sent: March 12, 2013 8:14 PM
To: [email protected]
CC: Ask Bjørn Hansen; <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Pool] Getting close to 1000 IPv6 servers
I'm seeing like 2x traffic in Canada at my server compared to IPv4. Even when
the net speed is roughly half.
IPv6: (Net Speed: 100mbit)
Inline image 1
IPv4: (Net Speed: 250mbit)
Inline image 2
But granted there are only 13 IPv6 servers in the CA zone.
Thanks,
--
James Hartig
Software Engineer @ Grooveshark.com
http://twitter.com/jameshartig
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:05 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
I guess we would indeed see notable increase in traffic if we enabled the IPv6
also for other than 2.* names.
Btw. Why is pool still in this old “only minorities are offered IPv6”-thinking?
Nowadays all even close modern Linux distributions along with W7, W8 and OS X
are pretty well configured and protected, even for case of non-functional IPv6
network. And AAAA records have been there for ages, so if some vendor hasn’t
really ignored them if necessary, it would be really weird. Not to forget that
for many of the clients failing NTP-query is by no means fatal. Unless there is
some ntpd server side reason I’m having hard time understanding current
configuration.
If it was up to me, I would maximum go and leave some legacy name for people
who get itchy or have some exotic equipment for the IPv6. Probably I would just
enable it for all, even more complex wide spread services (some even
commercial!) have now v6 on by default.
--
Markku Miettinen
From: Ask Bjørn Hansen
Sent: March 12, 2013 7:41 PM
To: Brian Rak
CC: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Pool] Getting close to 1000 IPv6 servers
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 11:00, Brian Rak wrote:
> Do you have any stats about what kind of IPv6 traffic the pool sees?
I started making a program to track the NTP traffic last fall, but I didn't get
too far.
I'd guess 1/50 to 1/200th of the IPv4 traffic.
> Looking at my one v6 enabled NTP server I see only a tiny amount of v6
> traffic.
Some years ago I made a javascript widget to test how many end-users had IPv6
support (the widget is on the NTP Pool site and a few other sites I'm involved
with); it says adaptation is up to about 4%.
http://www.v6test.develooper.com/statistics
For servers it's probably a bit more, but on the small appliances and such that
use the NTP Pool it's probably lower, so as a ballpark estimate we can go with
4% on the high side. Google says it's much lower:
http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics.html
Currently only people asking for 2.* (2.pool.ntp.org, 2.fedora.pool.ntp.org,
etc) even has the option of getting an AAAA record, so that probably makes it
down to 1/3 to 1/6th of the regular traffic, too.
Ask
--
Ask Bjørn Hansen - http://askask.com/
_______________________________________________
pool mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
_______________________________________________
pool mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool_______________________________________________
pool mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
