Big OTTs installed caches all over the world.
Big OTTs support IPv6.
Hosts prefer IPv6.
Hence, traffic becomes IPv6 to big OTTs.
It is not visible for IXes. IXes statistics on IPv6 are not representative.
Ed/
-Original Message-
From: Abraham Y. Chen [mailto:ayc...@avinta.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2022 12:35 AM
To: Chris Welti
Cc: NANOG ; b...@theworld.com; Vasilenko Eduard
Subject: 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
