Robin, On Nov 12, 2012, at 9:22 PM, Robin Whittle <r...@firstpr.com.au> wrote: > Hi Shane, > > Thanks for these links. The Verizon Wireless slide 14 had no > information on how the IPv6 traffic volume compared with that of IPv4. > Maybe such information was implied in slide 13 but I couldn't clearly > understand it.
No operators share traffic volume statistics publicly, for competitive reasons. I work as an operator, I should know. :-) > Comcast stated that "approximately 6% of the 2012 Olympics served over > YouTube to Comcast customers was over IPv6." This is a substantial > share of real ordinary user traffic. I wonder what the impetus for this > was - why didn't the hosts use IPv4? Ask Comcast? But, if I were to guess, I would suspect that implementation of "Happy Eyeballs" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs> in client Operating Systems (Mac OS X) and browsers (i.e.: Chrome, Firefox, etc.) *slightly* favors IPv6 transport compared to IPv4 transport during DNS resolution and connection set-up. Viola: more v6 traffic than v4. -shane _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
