Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
Hi, Chris: 1) "... public fabric ... private dedicated circuits ... heavily biased ...": You brought up an aspect that I have no knowledge about. However, you did not clarify how IPv6 and IPv4 are treated differently by these considerations which was the key parameter that we are trying to sort out. Thanks. Regards, Abe (2022-11-24 15:40) On 2022-11-24 12:23, Chris Welti wrote: Hi Abe, the problem is that the AMS-IX data only covers the public fabric, but the peering connections between the big CDNs/clouds and the large ISPs all happen on private dedicated circuits as it is so much traffic that it does not make sense to run it over a public IX fabric (in addition to local caches which dillute the stats even more). Thus that data you are referring to is heavily biased and should not be used for this generalized purpose. Regards, Chris On 24.11.22 18:01, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: Hi, Eduard: 0) Thanks for sharing your research efforts. 1) Similar as your own experience, we also recognized the granularity issue of the data in this particular type of statistics. Any data that is based on a limited number of countries, regions, businesses, industry segments, etc. will always be rebutted with a counter example of some sort. So, we put more trust into those general service cases with continuous reports for consistency, such as AMS-IX. If you know any better sources, I would like to look into them. Regards, Abe (2022-11-24 11:59 EST) On 2022-11-24 04:43, Vasilenko Eduard wrote: Hi Abraham, Let me clarify a little bit on statistics - I did an investigation last year. Google and APNIC report very similar numbers. APNIC permits drilling down deep details. Then it is possible to understand that they see only 100M Chinese. China itself reports 0.5B IPv6 users. APNIC gives Internet population by country - it permits to construct proportion. Hence, it is possible to conclude that we need to add 8% to Google (or APNIC) to get 48% of IPv6 preferred users worldwide. We would likely cross 50% this year. I spent a decent time finding traffic statics. I have found one DPI vendor who has it. Unfortunately, they sell it for money. ARCEP has got it for France and published it in their "Barometer". Almost 70% of application requests are possible to serve from IPv6. Hence, 70%*48%=33.6%. We could claim that 1/3 of the traffic is IPv6 worldwide because France is typical. My boss told me "No-No" for this logic. His example is China where we had reliable data for only 20% of application requests served on IPv6 (China has a very low IPv6 adoption by OTTs). My response was: But India has a much better IPv6 adoption on the web server side. China and a few other countries are not representative. The majority are like France. Unfortunately, we do not have per-country IPv6 adoption on the web server side. OK. We could estimate 60% of the application readiness as a minimum. Then 60%*48%=28.8%. Hence, we could claim that at least 1/4 of the worldwide traffic is IPv6. IX data shows much low IPv6 adoption because the biggest OTTs have many caches installed directly on Carriers' sites. Sorry for not the exact science. But it is all that I have. It is better than nothing. PS: 60% of requests served by web servers does not mean "60% of servers". For servers themselves we have statistics - it is just 20%+. But it is for the biggest web resources. Eduard -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Abraham Y. Chen Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2022 11:53 AM To: Joe Maimon Cc: NANOG;b...@theworld.com Subject: Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Dear Joe: 0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up. 1) "...https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years ": Your numbers may be deceiving. A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and ratified on 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few years more than your impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over quarter of a century. B. If you read closely, the statement "The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6." above the graph actually means "equipment readiness". That is, how many Google users have IPv6 capable devices. This is similar as the APNIC statistics whose title makes this clearer. However, having the capability does not mean the owners are actually using it. Also, this is not general data, but within the Google environment. Since Google is one of the stronger promoters of the IPv6, this graph would be at best the cap of such data. C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic statistics. Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive search. (If you know of any, I would appreciate to receive a lead to such.) The closest
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
Hi, Douglas: 0) Thanks for the feedback. 1) I do not sort eMail with any tools. Other than important ones that do I save a copy off the system as a document for long term reference, I only flag those of substance for the keeps and allow the rest to "expire" (I do house cleaning every three months or so.). Consequently, I have no idea about the terminologies that you mentioned. 2) My basic understanding is, an eMail in its entirety is the original work of its composer / writer / sender. As such, a receiver is free to do anything with it, but not to impose certain "rules" back onto the writing. Through the years, eMail writing styles have diversified from the business letter protocols that I knew so much that I had to develop my own conventions of writing that enabled me to organize my eMails for retrieval. They seem to be tolerated by most parties that communicated with except NANOG. If you have certain clear rules that can pass my "logistics" considerations, I will definitely learn and follow. Regards, Abe (2022-11-24 16:00 EST) On 2022-11-24 06:51, Douglas Fischer wrote: Hello Abraham! I believe your e-mail client (MUA) is splitting every message on a new thread. I'm not sure if it is happening with everyone, but using Gmail as MUA, it isn't aggregating the mails on the same thread. Cloud you please check the confs of your tool to avoid it? Thanks in advance. Em qui., 24 de nov. de 2022 às 05:56, Abraham Y. Chen escreveu: Dear Joe: 0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up. 1) "... https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years ": Your numbers may be deceiving. A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and ratified on 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few years more than your impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over quarter of a century. B. If you read closely, the statement "The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6." above the graph actually means "equipment readiness". That is, how many Google users have IPv6 capable devices. This is similar as the APNIC statistics whose title makes this clearer. However, having the capability does not mean the owners are actually using it. Also, this is not general data, but within the Google environment. Since Google is one of the stronger promoters of the IPv6, this graph would be at best the cap of such data. C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic statistics. Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive search. (If you know of any, I would appreciate to receive a lead to such.) The closest that we could find is % of IPv6 in AMS-IX traffic statistics (see URL below). It is currently at about 5-6% and has been tapering off to a growth of less than 0.1% per month recently, after a ramp-up period in the past. (Similar saturation behavior can also be found in the above Google graph.) https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html D. One interesting parameter behind the last one is that as an Inter-eXchange operator, AMS-IX should see very similar percentage traffic mix between IPv6 and IPv4. The low numbers from AMS-IX does not support this viewpoint for matching with your observation. In addition, traffic through IX is the overflow among backbone routers. A couple years ago, there was a report that peering arrangements among backbone routers for IPv6 were much less matured then IPv4, which meant that AMS-IX should be getting more IPv6 traffic than the mix in the Internet core. Interpreted in reverse, % of IPv6 in overall Internet traffic should be less than what AMS-IX handles. E. This is a quite convoluted topic that we only scratched the surface. They should not occupy the attention of colleagues on this list. However, I am willing to provide more information to you off-line, if you care for further discussion. 2) "... https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080108011057.ga21...@cisco.com/ ...": My basic training was in communication equipment hardware design. I knew little about software beyond what I needed for my primary assignment. Your example, however, reminds me of a programing course that I took utilizing APL (A Programming Language) for circuit analysis, optimization and synthesis. It was such a cryptic symbolic language that classmates (mostly majored in EE hardware) were murmuring to express their displeasure. One day we got a homework assignment to do something relatively simple. Everyone struggled to write the code to do the job. Although most of us did get working codes, they were pages long. The shortest one
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC
> What's the group's current thought on emergence or prevalence of > IPv6-only hosts ? They aren’t needed; dual stack hosts will work just fine in a single stack network. When they’re needed, they will be normal but nobody will care.
Fwd: [apops] APRICOT 2023 Call for Presentations
FYI. Mark. Forwarded Message Subject:[apops] APRICOT 2023 Call for Presentations Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2022 20:03:11 +1000 From: Philip Smith Organization: Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Operational Technologies To: ap...@apops.net Hi everyone, Forwarding the APRICOT 2023 call for presentations on behalf of the PC Chairs. Best wishes! philip -- APRICOT 2023 20th February - 2nd March, Manila, Philippines https://2023.apricot.net CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS == The APRICOT 2023 Programme Committee is now seeking contributions for Presentations and Tutorials for the APRICOT 2023 Conference. We are looking for presenters who would: - Offer a technical tutorial on an appropriate topic; - Participate in the technical conference sessions as a speaker; - Convene and chair panel sessions of relevant topics; - Lead informal Birds of Feather break out sessions. Please submit on-line at: http://papers.apricot.net/user/login.php?event=161 CONFERENCE MILESTONES - Call for Papers Opens: Now Outline Programme Published: As Papers Confirmed Final Deadline for Submissions: 30th January 2023 Final Program Published: 6th February 2023 Final Slides Received: 20th February 2023 *SLOTS ARE FILLED ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS, REGARDLESS OF PUBLISHED DEADLINES* PROGRAMME CONTENT - The APRICOT Conference Programme consists of three parts, these being Tutorials, the Peering Forum, and Conference Sessions. Topics proposed must be relevant to Internet Operations and Technologies, for example: - IPv4 / IPv6 Routing and Operations - Routing Security, including RPKI and MANRS - Internet backbone operations - Peering, Interconnects and IXPs - Content Distribution Network technology & operations - Chip shortages impact on equipment acquisition and operations - Research on Internet Operations and Deployment - Pandemic impact on network deployment and operations - Network Virtualisation - Network Automation/Programming - Network Infrastructure security - IPv6 deployment on fixed and Wireless/Cellular networks - DNS / DNSSEC and KINDNS - Access and Transport Technologies - Technical application of Web 3.0, public blockchains and cryptocurrency - Content & Service Delivery and "Cloud Computing" CfP SUBMISSION -- Draft slides for both tutorials and conference sessions MUST be provided with CfP submissions otherwise the submission will be rejected immediately. For work in progress, the most current information available at time of submission is acceptable. All draft and complete slides must be submitted in PDF format only. Slides must be of original work, with all company confidential marks removed. Final slides are to be provided by the specified deadline for publication on the APRICOT website. Prospective presenters should note that the majority of speaking slots will be filled well before the final submission deadline. The PC may, at their discretion, retain a limited number of slots up to the final submission deadline for presentations that are exceptionally timely, important, or of critical operational importance. Every year we turn away submissions, due to filling up all available programme slots before the deadline. Presenters should endeavour to get material to the PC sooner rather than later. Any questions or concerns should be addressed to the Programme Committee Chairs by e-mail at: pc-chairs at apricot.net We look forward to receiving your presentation proposals. Mark Tinka & Marijana Novakovic APRICOT 2023 Programme Committee Chairs -- ___ Go to the apops mailing list on Orbit -- orbit.apnic.net/mailing-list/ap...@apops.net Explore orbit.apnic.net, where the APNIC community connect, discuss and share information related to Internet addressing and networking. To unsubscribe send an email to apops-le...@apops.net
