Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Sander Steffann]

> Op 11 jan. 2016, om 15:05 heeft Vint Cerf  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> sounds like the Federal Reserve testing the waters with hints of increasing 
> discount rate...

:)



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Vint,

> Op 11 jan. 2016, om 12:47 heeft Vint Cerf  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> since google is a major implementor of IPv6, some people might claim this is 
> an attempt to artificially inflate scores for Google sites. Sigh.

Sigh indeed. On the other hand: IPv6 is getting enough traction that it can't 
be considered a "Google thing".

A thought: Maybe Google could announce that because of the increasing scarcity 
of IPv4 addresses and the rise of global IPv6 deployment Google is considering 
to start taking IPv6 reachability into account later this year. That would give 
the possibility for Google to watch how people respond before actually changing 
anything, it would take away some arguments of those that blame Google for 
artificially inflating scores (they have been warned long in advance) and it 
would make SEO companies more aware of IPv6 so they can start pushing the ISPs 
and hosters to support IPv6.

Google already provides webmaster tools. Maybe showing a warning for websites 
that aren't reachable over IPv6 (or even worse: that have completely different 
content on IPv6) would be nice. Even if IPv6 reachability doesn't affect the 
page rank (yet) the number of users with IPv6+IPv4-CGN is growing so enabling 
IPv6 will have a positive impact on a growing number of eyeballs (see 
Facebook's experience with IPv6 performance). Showing warning messages on 
Google Webmaster Tools when the site is not reachable over IPv6 (and error 
messages when the IPv4 content is very different from the IPv6 content) would 
be nice.

Even if Google gets so much pushback that they decide not to go forward with 
this at this point in time it might already cause some good awareness for IPv6.

Even though IPv6 is growing all over the world I still think Google doing 
something like this would help a lot.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Mansoor Nathani]

Aren't IBM and Softlayer one and the same these days?

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as:
>
> Host Virtualvr.org 
> Softlayer   softlayer.com 
> Linode  linode.com 
>
> Places like Amazon and Google and IBM would get the message faster than
> from people complaining on this list.
>
> Owen
>
> > On Jan 5, 2016, at 08:15 , James Hartig  wrote:
> >
> > I would hope that Google would first fix the fact that "Compute Engine
> > networks do not support IPv6 at all."[1] before doing anything with SEO.
> >
> > [1] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networking
> > --
> > James Hartig
>
>

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Jared Mauch]

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
> I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as:
> 
>   Host Virtualvr.org 
>   Softlayer   softlayer.com 
>   Linode  linode.com 
> 
> Places like Amazon and Google and IBM would get the message faster than
> from people complaining on this list.

Yes, the echo chamber of NANOG, that sometimes makes it out further :)

I’ve heard rumblings that Amazon is slowly making progress in the IPv6 front
and others are marching forward here.  I think this will largely be driven
by the mobile marketing machine.  There’s a lot of things converging at once
and I expect 2016 to see major shifts in “IP Classic” -> IPv6 traffic.  We
saw a doubling of IPv6 bitrate on our network just by the iOS change in how
they handled happy eyeballs.

I’m hoping that Frontier brings v6 to their service area when they
close the deal on FiOS purchase from VZ.

For me on the marketing side: If you expect your users to visit from a
mobile device, your website and resources should be available and 
optimized for IPv6.

- Jared

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

Yes and no…

Yes, IBM bot Softlayer.

No, IBM datacenters that predate Softlayer still can’t spell IPv6.
Softlayer datacenters all had IPv6 before IBM got to them.

Owen

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 14:53 , Mansoor Nathani  wrote:
> 
> Aren't IBM and Softlayer one and the same these days?
> 
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as:
> 
> Host Virtualvr.org   >
> Softlayer   softlayer.com  
> >
> Linode  linode.com   >
> 
> Places like Amazon and Google and IBM would get the message faster than
> from people complaining on this list.
> 
> Owen
> 
> > On Jan 5, 2016, at 08:15 , James Hartig  > > wrote:
> >
> > I would hope that Google would first fix the fact that "Compute Engine
> > networks do not support IPv6 at all."[1] before doing anything with SEO.
> >
> > [1] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networking 
> > 
> > --
> > James Hartig
> 
> 

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as:

Host Virtualvr.org 
Softlayer   softlayer.com 
Linode  linode.com 

Places like Amazon and Google and IBM would get the message faster than
from people complaining on this list.

Owen

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 08:15 , James Hartig  wrote:
> 
> I would hope that Google would first fix the fact that "Compute Engine
> networks do not support IPv6 at all."[1] before doing anything with SEO.
> 
> [1] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networking
> --
> James Hartig

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[George, Wes]

On 1/4/16, 11:54 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Neil Harris"
 wrote:


>I can only imagine the scale of the schadenfreude IPv6 proponents will
>be able to feel once they're able to start talking about IPv4 as a
>legacy protocol.

*start*?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/n3pb/sets/72157634324914351/

:-)


Wes


Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
have no control over it.
---






This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable 
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to 
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the 
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and 
any printout.

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[James Hartig]

I would hope that Google would first fix the fact that "Compute Engine
networks do not support IPv6 at all."[1] before doing anything with SEO.

[1] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networking
--
James Hartig

RE: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Steve Mikulasik]

They don't need to actually implement it, just say IPv6 increases ranking. SEO 
is mostly BS anyways, I doubt anyone would notice.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 4:33 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a slight bonus 
in search rankings. And just like that, there will suddenly be a business 
reason to implement IPv6.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Owen DeLong wrote:

Good that one of them is finally backing down on the previous stupidity, 
but for a variety of reasons, I wish it had been T-mo.


Why? IPv6 only with IPv4 transported over it is clearly the way to go for 
the future, it makes more sense to have Apple support this mode once for 
their devices, than it is for every mobile provider to have to support 
IPv4v6 with all the drawbacks, and then migrate people again to IPv6+AFTR 
solution in a few years.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 00:09 , Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Jared Mauch wrote:
> 
>> I for one welcome the iOS update that brings v6 APN native access to my 
>> phone, or at least v4v6 APN setting.
> 
> That's not how it's done on Apple, they (together with the operator) control 
> the APN settings. There are several mobile networks that run IPv4v6 on iOS 
> (all LTE enabled devices support this) for almost a year (I believe it was 
> iOS 8.3 in March 2015 that started to support this for more general 3GPP 
> providers).
> 
> But getting IPv4v6 bearer working in a mobile network is non-trivial and it 
> still brings the CGN mess, so a lot of mobile providers prefer to use IPv6 
> only with translation to reach IPv4 sites. That's where Cameron is coming 
> from, and it's perfectly understanable mode of operation.

Except that the only mode of translation Cameron is willing to support is the 
one which isn’t available in iOS, so we have a religious war between T-Mo and 
Apple where T-Mo says “Support 464Xlat or suffer” and Apple says “No, you 
support one of the mechanisms already supported in iOS”.

> Apple seems to be working to make IPv6 only+AFTR happen and I have good hopes 
> that they'll succeed in 2016.

Good that one of them is finally backing down on the previous stupidity, but 
for a variety of reasons, I wish it had been T-mo.

Owen

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 20:27 , George Metz  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
>> the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do
>> to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and
>> enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat?  carrot not stick.
>> 
>> randy
>> 
> 
> The problem is, the only way to make it easier for providers and
> enterprises to switch is to make it less scary looking and less complicated
> sounding. That door closed when it was decided to go with hex and 128-bit
> numbering. *I* know it's not nearly as bad as it seems and why it was done,
> and their network folks by and large know it's not as bad as it seems, but
> the people making the decisions to spend large sums of money upgrading
> stuff that works just fine thank-you-very-much are looking at it and saying
> "Ye gods... I sort of understand what IP means but that looks like an alien
> language!"
> 
> At which point the ugly duckling gets tossed out on it's ear before it has
> a chance to become a swan.

I haven’t been involved in a single executive briefing where hex or the length
of the addresses came up as an issue.

This is a total red herring.

Decision makers aren’t paying attention to what the addresses look like. Most of
them likely wouldn’t recognize an IPv4 address if you showed them one.

Owen

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Bruce Curtis]

This page is fun to play with.  The 3rd order polynomial currently results in 
the most optimistic projection and 700 days in the future is enough for a good 
view of the results.  The page is for the US.


https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/project.php?metric=q&country=us


> On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:35 AM, Tomas Podermanski  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>according to Google's statistics
> (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st December
> 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just a
> little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December we also
> celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC 1883.
> 
> I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-)
> 
> Tomas
> 
> 
>  Original Message 
> Subject:  Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:14:18 +0100
> From: Tomas Podermanski 
> To:   nanog@nanog.org
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>It seems that today is a "big day" for IPv6. It is the very first
> time when native IPv6 on google statistics
> (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some
> might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-)
> 
> T.
> 
> 
> 

---
Bruce Curtis bruce.cur...@ndsu.edu
Certified NetAnalyst II701-231-8527
North Dakota State University

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Jared Mauch wrote:


I for one welcome the iOS update that brings v6 APN native access to my phone, 
or at least v4v6 APN setting.


That's not how it's done on Apple, they (together with the operator) 
control the APN settings. There are several mobile networks that run 
IPv4v6 on iOS (all LTE enabled devices support this) for almost a year (I 
believe it was iOS 8.3 in March 2015 that started to support this for more 
general 3GPP providers).


But getting IPv4v6 bearer working in a mobile network is non-trivial and 
it still brings the CGN mess, so a lot of mobile providers prefer to 
use IPv6 only with translation to reach IPv4 sites. That's where Cameron 
is coming from, and it's perfectly understanable mode of operation.


Apple seems to be working to make IPv6 only+AFTR happen and I have good 
hopes that they'll succeed in 2016.


To some other poster regarding IPv6 adoption by people settings up tunnels 
etc. In my experience, if you put "enable IPv6"-button in the self-care 
portal, around 1% will enable this. Very few are interested, and rightly 
so. IPv6 needs to be engineered and enabled by the ISP as a normal part of 
Internet access, not something the customer has to actively choose.


If the customer buys their own CPE and it doesn't support IPv6, well, then 
that customer will have to fix that themselves, but the ISP needs to make 
sure that whatever equipment/access they deliver, they need to support 
IPv6 on it.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Tore Anderson]

* Sander Steffann 

> > We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a
> > slight bonus in search rankings. And just like that, there will
> > suddenly be a business reason to implement IPv6.  
> 
> I already discussed that with them a long time ago, but they weren't
> convinced. Maybe now is the time to discuss it again :)

I've mentioned this in other forums before, but I might as well repeat
it here too:

I can understand that Google (or Netflix for that matter) are reluctant
to engage in pure IPv6 activism by providing different or improved
content to users which have no IPv6 connectivity. However, maybe they'd
be more open to the idea if it was limited to IPv6 clients only? That
is, IFF the Google user submitting the search is doing it using IPv6,
then consider the result entries' IPv6 availability when sorting the
result set.

My reasoning is that there would be an objective techincal reason for
doing it. The client is demonstrably capable of using IPv6 and prefers
to do so, and as it has been shown that IPv6 performs better than IPv4
(see e.g. https://youtu.be/_7rcAIbvzVY), giving priority to IPv6-enabled
results seems a logical thing to do. Much in the same way that it makes
sense to rank mobile-optimised sites high in result sets returned to
mobile clients.

I'd imagine that the promise of improved Google ratings for 10%/25% of
global/U.S. users will still be a significant enough business reason
for web site operators to seriously consider implementing IPv6.

Tore

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Randy Bush]

>> the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do
>> to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and
>> enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat?  carrot not stick.
> 
> The problem is, the only way to make it easier for providers and
> enterprises to switch is to make it less scary looking and less complicated
> sounding. That door closed when it was decided to go with hex and 128-bit
> numbering. *I* know it's not nearly as bad as it seems and why it was done,
> and their network folks by and large know it's not as bad as it seems, but
> the people making the decisions to spend large sums of money upgrading
> stuff that works just fine thank-you-very-much are looking at it and saying
> "Ye gods... I sort of understand what IP means but that looks like an alien
> language!"
> 
> At which point the ugly duckling gets tossed out on it's ear before it has
> a chance to become a swan.

sorry, i am not interested in the marketing and glossy paper crap.  and
your dissing isps and enterprises is a part of the problem not part of
an approach to a solution.  

this reminds me when one of the ietf ivory tower fools said (during the
TLA?NLA wars), and i quote, "the HD ratio will not work because
operators do not understand logarithms."  and he still stands in the way
of useful progress.

randy

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[George Metz]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do
> to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and
> enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat?  carrot not stick.
>
> randy
>

The problem is, the only way to make it easier for providers and
enterprises to switch is to make it less scary looking and less complicated
sounding. That door closed when it was decided to go with hex and 128-bit
numbering. *I* know it's not nearly as bad as it seems and why it was done,
and their network folks by and large know it's not as bad as it seems, but
the people making the decisions to spend large sums of money upgrading
stuff that works just fine thank-you-very-much are looking at it and saying
"Ye gods... I sort of understand what IP means but that looks like an alien
language!"

At which point the ugly duckling gets tossed out on it's ear before it has
a chance to become a swan.

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Randy Bush]

> The Netflix idea is putting pressure on eyeball networks. The google
> search rank idea is to put pressure on content providers.

and how does the internet benefit by putting pressure on providers?  i
see how the folk who produce glossy paper for a living, or those who
charge for renting 128 bit integers, benefit.  but how do those of us
who push packets, or our customers, benefit?

the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do
to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and
enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat?  carrot not stick.

randy

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 5 January 2016 at 02:53, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> The same is likely true of the Google search ranking idea, no?
>

The Netflix idea is putting pressure on eyeball networks. The google search
rank idea is to put pressure on content providers. You have been arguing
that the content providers are the larger problem now.

Content providers in general have access to IPv6 if they want it. They are
just too lazy to implement it.

The exception being AWS. But I would cry dry tears if these guys got hunted
by their lack of IPv6 by design.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:42:45 -0800, Owen DeLong said:

> Another alternative discussed, but Netflix seems so far to be unconvinced:
>
> If you come via IPv6, you get all the content.
>
> If you come from IPv4,

And Netflix convinces Sony to ship an IPv6-capable OS update for the PS3 and
PS4, how, exactly?  (Replace Sony, and PS[34] with pretty much any other
legacy client out there...)


pgpmfPsWmvx0k.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 17:01 , Ricky Beam  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:42:45 -0500, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> If you come from IPv4, in the first week that new content is posted, instead 
>> of the new content, you get a video explaining the need to get a better 
>> internet connection and that the content you want will be available to the 
>> legacy internet on .
> 
> All that does is piss off Netflix's customers who have zero control 
> ("choice") over IPv6 availability. And in most cases zero understanding as 
> well.  Netflix isn't in the business of driving away paying customers.
> 
> --Ricky

The same is likely true of the Google search ranking idea, no?

Owen

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Damian Menscher]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:48 PM,  wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:23:20 -0500, Christopher Morrow said:
> > https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq?hl=en
> >
> > there I asked jeeves for ya!
>
> > > So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve
> to
> > > a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the
> > > same country as the machine that made the original query?
>
> With 43 subnets for servers and only 13 unique airport codes, the
> conclusion
> is that without additional fun and games, locating based on the DNS for
> 8.8.8.8
> will be incorrect for *most* countries.  Probably gets the continent right.


If you're load-balancing by country, you've already lost.  It turns out the
USA has more users than Luxembourg, Samoa, Monaco, Bermuda, and Andorra
*combined*.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:17:56 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> > Further, 8.8.8.8 actually fully supports EDNS0 Client Subnet capability,
> so
> > if the geo-IP balancer in question wants, they can eliminate the failure
> mode
> > you are describing in that case.
>
> Which only helps for people using 8.8.8.8. Client Subnet does help the
> issue,
> but it doesn't actually fix it until support is near ubiquitous across
> intermediate nameservers that have clients in other geographic locations...
>
> (I believe that the fact that Google found a need to create EDNS0 Client
> Subnet *at all* is proof that using the DNS address for localization is
> problematic...)
>
> And again - it's still something that needs work upstream to support, and
> you *still* have to deal with the case where the intermediate DNS server
> doesn't do Client Subnet.
>

Not all auth servers need to support Client Subnet... just those that want
to do DNS-based load-balancing in a more fine-grained level than already
achieved by Google's multiple datacenters.  And while I don't know what
software most companies use for their DNS-based load-balancing, I'd guess
that adding Client Subnet support is a minor feature request relative to
the other required logic.

Damian

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Justin M. Streiner]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Ca By wrote:


Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number.

The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices.

Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply extends the
past onto the future.  It does not account for purposeful engineering
design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates.

For example, once Apple cleanses the app store of IPv4 apps in 2016 as they
have committed and pushes one of their ubiquitous iOS updates, you may see
substantial jumps over night in IPv6 eyeballs, possibly meaningful moving
that 37% number to over 50% in a few shorts weeks.

This will squarely make it clear that IPv4 is minority legacy protocol for
all of mobile, and thusly the immediate future of the internet.


True, but as noted in other recent threads, it would appear that IPv6 
deployment in many areas outside the United States is nowhere near as far 
along. While IPv6 is the future (in some areas, the present), it's 
probably way too early to try to nail down a date to write the obituary 
on IPv4.


jms

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Ricky Beam]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:42:45 -0500, Owen DeLong  wrote:
If you come from IPv4, in the first week that new content is posted,  
instead of the new content, you get a video explaining the need to get a  
better internet connection and that the content you want will be  
available to the legacy internet on .


All that does is piss off Netflix's customers who have zero control  
("choice") over IPv6 availability. And in most cases zero understanding as  
well.  Netflix isn't in the business of driving away paying customers.


--Ricky

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 16:37 , Sander Steffann  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a slight
>> bonus in search rankings. And just like that, there will suddenly be a
>> business reason to implement IPv6.
> 
> I already discussed that with them a long time ago, but they weren't 
> convinced. Maybe now is the time to discuss it again :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Sander
> 

Another alternative discussed, but Netflix seems so far to be unconvinced:

If you come via IPv6, you get all the content.

If you come from IPv4, in the first week that new content is posted, instead of 
the new content, you get a video explaining the need to get a better internet 
connection and that the content you want will be available to the legacy 
internet on .

Owen

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Sander Steffann]

Hi,

> We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a slight
> bonus in search rankings. And just like that, there will suddenly be a
> business reason to implement IPv6.

I already discussed that with them a long time ago, but they weren't convinced. 
Maybe now is the time to discuss it again :)

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 16:21 , Damian Menscher  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> domain.name  results are 82 (16.4%) up from 69 (13.8%).
> www.domain.name   > results are 101 (20.2%) up from 81 (16.2%)
> 
> As a professional pessimist, I can't help but note that of the 111 sites 
> responding over IPv6 (I'm including a 400 or 500 as a "response"), more than 
> half (58) are operated by Google.  So ignoring Google sites, the Alexa Top 
> 500 becomes the Alexa Top 441 and has 53 IPv6-enabled sites, or ~12%.
> 
> Damian

I think 12% vs. 16% isn’t that much of a difference. Both numbers are horribly 
horribly low.

Owen

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Damian Menscher via NANOG]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> domain.name results are 82 (16.4%) up from 69 (13.8%).
> www.domain.name  results are 101 (20.2%) up from
> 81 (16.2%)


As a professional pessimist, I can't help but note that of the 111 sites
responding over IPv6 (I'm including a 400 or 500 as a "response"), more
than half (58) are operated by Google.  So ignoring Google sites, the Alexa
Top 500 becomes the Alexa Top 441 and has 53 IPv6-enabled sites, or ~12%.

Damian

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:35:05 -0800, Owen DeLong said:

> You do realize that the query source address is not 8.8.8.8 when it goes to 
> the
> authoritative server, right?

As I said:

> So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve to
> a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the
> same country as the machine that made the original query?

User talks to 8.8.8.8, and that host goes up the tree with *its* IP. And how
often does *that* IP look like it belongs in the same country as the user?


pgpxsih4JPZd6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

It’s always fun when I open my mouth in public only to turn it into a learning 
experience.

TL;DR version: Several enhancements to the script and to my PERL library to 
improve the
accuracy were made. The now more accurate results aren’t very different.

Details below:

As a result of comments received in this thread and privately about the 
statistics pages,
I started investigating the mysterious 5XX result codes and made several 
improvements to
the script.

First, I found the black text on blue hard to read, so I got rid of it. I 
converted the
black text to white when the background is blue.

Purely cosmetic, but still worth doing.

Next, I started digging into why was LWP returning a 5xx result code. I 
discovered that
it wasn’t getting a 5xx on the wire and was only sending one request which was 
getting
a 3xx result and then it wasn’t sending an additional request. This led me to 
(erroneously)
assume that it wasn’t attempting to follow the redirect.

Some additional digging led me to the fact that LWP sometimes lies to you in 
both the
documentation and the software.

It was following redirects and continued to do so no matter how hard I tried to 
tell it
not to.

I did find out how to reverse the redirect back a step ($ua->previous() will 
return the
response prior to the current response object in $ua if anyone cares).

Armed with that information, I started looking at what I was getting and the 
text being
reported by LWP with the 5xx errors. Turns out that I had neglected to install a
module known as LWP::Protocol::https which meant that any redirect to HTTPS 
would
fail with a 5xx result code from LWP without any packets over the wire being 
attempted.

I’ve also made the script slightly more optimistic in that I do now count 3xx 
results
as valid. This is now OVERLY optimistic in that anything that gets stuck at 3xx 
is
actually a failed page load (the redirect went somewhere that didn’t actually 
work),
but there are very few of these and they appear to relate to certificate 
verification
failures which may be due to the version of root cert library on my system used 
by
LWP more than anything else.

The legitimate results post redirect are now guaranteed to come from an IPv6 
destination
because LWP is running with a source host name/address which does not have an A 
record
or an IPv4 address associated.

So… The revised statistics are now up and the results aren’t very startling.

DNS results are unchanged.

domain.name results are 82 (16.4%) up from 69 (13.8%).
www.domain.name  results are 101 (20.2%) up from 81 
(16.2%)

So it only changed the results for 13-20 sites overall.

speedtest.net  and wikimedia.org  
(but not www.wikimedia.org ) failes (500) with 
“write failed: bad file descriptor” ??? Write?
Interestingly, speedtest.net  has an  record, but 
www.speedtest.net  does not.
mega.nz  still errors out 500 for timeout
marca.com  still has a legitimate 500 error (timeout)

A further enhancement to the script will probably replace the short status code 
in the table with the full status line
for any result outside of the 2xx range.

Owen

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:17:56 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
>> Further, 8.8.8.8 actually fully supports EDNS0 Client Subnet capability, so
>> if the geo-IP balancer in question wants, they can eliminate the failure mode
>> you are describing in that case.
> 
> Which only helps for people using 8.8.8.8. Client Subnet does help the issue,
> but it doesn't actually fix it until support is near ubiquitous across
> intermediate nameservers that have clients in other geographic locations…

Well… that and any other DNS server that supports EDNS0 client subnet.

> 
> (I believe that the fact that Google found a need to create EDNS0 Client
> Subnet *at all* is proof that using the DNS address for localization is
> problematic…)

Sure, but anycast is even more problematic and those are basically the only
two alternatives currently known for solving the problem in question.

> 
> And again - it's still something that needs work upstream to support, and
> you *still* have to deal with the case where the intermediate DNS server
> doesn't do Client Subnet.

Or accept that no solution is perfect, make this one as good as we can for now
and move on.

> 
>> I say slightly pessimistic because there aren’t all that many 3XX responses
>> being reported.
> 
> OK, that's a slightly different kettle of fish :)  To the nearest 10% or
> so, how many are answering with a 3xx of any sort?


Well… I’ll post a separate message detailing my findings. It’s more interesting 
than
I previously realized because none were reporting 3xx results and all 3xx 
results
were getting hidden behind 5xx results which weren’t (all) entirely valid.

Owen

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 14:09 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:52:46 -0800, Damian Menscher said:
> 
>> While I agree with your general sentiment about 3xx responses (often used
>> to redirect example.com to www.example.com) I think your concerns about
>> 8.8.8.8 are over-stated.  8.8.8.8 is deployed in many locations, which
>> gives DNS-based geolocation a decent chance of working.
> 
> So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve to
> a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the
> same country as the machine that made the original query?
> 
> How does a company know that another instance of 8.8.8.8 has been turned up or
> down or re-peered, causing a shift in the mapping of DNS queries to countries/
> states?
> 
> 

You do realize that the query source address is not 8.8.8.8 when it goes to the
authoritative server, right?

The client sees 8.8.8.8. The authoritative server does not.

The query from Google to the authoritative server will come from a unique 
address local to the particular instance.

Owen

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Baldur Norddahl]

We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a slight
bonus in search rankings. And just like that, there will suddenly be a
business reason to implement IPv6.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:23:20 -0500, Christopher Morrow said:
> https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq?hl=en
>
> there I asked jeeves for ya!

> > So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve to
> > a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the
> > same country as the machine that made the original query?

With 43 subnets for servers and only 13 unique airport codes, the conclusion
is that without additional fun and games, locating based on the DNS for 8.8.8.8
will be incorrect for *most* countries.  Probably gets the continent right.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:17:56 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> Further, 8.8.8.8 actually fully supports EDNS0 Client Subnet capability, so
> if the geo-IP balancer in question wants, they can eliminate the failure mode
> you are describing in that case.

Which only helps for people using 8.8.8.8. Client Subnet does help the issue,
but it doesn't actually fix it until support is near ubiquitous across
intermediate nameservers that have clients in other geographic locations...

(I believe that the fact that Google found a need to create EDNS0 Client
Subnet *at all* is proof that using the DNS address for localization is
problematic...)

And again - it's still something that needs work upstream to support, and
you *still* have to deal with the case where the intermediate DNS server
doesn't do Client Subnet.

> I say slightly pessimistic because there aren’t all that many 3XX responses
> being reported.

OK, that's a slightly different kettle of fish :)  To the nearest 10% or
so, how many are answering with a 3xx of any sort?


pgpPtdDmWJbyo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Christopher Morrow]

https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq?hl=en

there I asked jeeves for ya!

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:09 PM,   wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:52:46 -0800, Damian Menscher said:
>
>> While I agree with your general sentiment about 3xx responses (often used
>> to redirect example.com to www.example.com) I think your concerns about
>> 8.8.8.8 are over-stated.  8.8.8.8 is deployed in many locations, which
>> gives DNS-based geolocation a decent chance of working.
>
> So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve to
> a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the
> same country as the machine that made the original query?
>
> How does a company know that another instance of 8.8.8.8 has been turned up or
> down or re-peered, causing a shift in the mapping of DNS queries to countries/
> states?
>
>

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 13:21 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:59:40 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> 
>> These numbers might be slightly pessimistic because 3XX series responses are
>> not counted as good.
> 
> They may be a *lot* more than slightly pessimistic - consider the case of
> any site that uses 3xx replies to redirect to a geo-IP based server rather
> than doing it in DNS (which has the problem that you're redirecting based
> on the IP of the DNS server that asked, which will fail miserably for
> anybody using 8.8.8.8 as their DNS server)


I say slightly pessimistic because there aren’t all that many 3XX responses
being reported.

Further, 8.8.8.8 actually fully supports EDNS0 Client Subnet capability, so
if the geo-IP balancer in question wants, they can eliminate the failure mode
you are describing in that case.

However, in either case, I’ll happily give you a copy of the code if you want
to enhance it to detect 3XX responses that redirect to an IPv6 capable site
vs. 3XX responses that redirect to an IPv4 only site in a sort of slight of hand
designed to trick scripts like this one (yes, there are some of those out there
last time I looked).

Owen

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:52:46 -0800, Damian Menscher said:

> While I agree with your general sentiment about 3xx responses (often used
> to redirect example.com to www.example.com) I think your concerns about
> 8.8.8.8 are over-stated.  8.8.8.8 is deployed in many locations, which
> gives DNS-based geolocation a decent chance of working.

So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve to
a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the
same country as the machine that made the original query?

How does a company know that another instance of 8.8.8.8 has been turned up or
down or re-peered, causing a shift in the mapping of DNS queries to countries/
states?




pgpWnY4tojb6A.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Damian Menscher via NANOG]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:21 PM,  wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:59:40 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
>
> > These numbers might be slightly pessimistic because 3XX series responses
> are
> > not counted as good.
>
> They may be a *lot* more than slightly pessimistic - consider the case of
> any site that uses 3xx replies to redirect to a geo-IP based server rather
> than doing it in DNS (which has the problem that you're redirecting based
> on the IP of the DNS server that asked, which will fail miserably for
> anybody using 8.8.8.8 as their DNS server)


While I agree with your general sentiment about 3xx responses (often used
to redirect example.com to www.example.com) I think your concerns about
8.8.8.8 are over-stated.  8.8.8.8 is deployed in many locations, which
gives DNS-based geolocation a decent chance of working.  And it also
supports the client subnet EDNS0 extension (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-06) for
more fine-grained balancing.

Damian

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:59:40 -0800, Owen DeLong said:

> These numbers might be slightly pessimistic because 3XX series responses are
> not counted as good.

They may be a *lot* more than slightly pessimistic - consider the case of
any site that uses 3xx replies to redirect to a geo-IP based server rather
than doing it in DNS (which has the problem that you're redirecting based
on the IP of the DNS server that asked, which will fail miserably for
anybody using 8.8.8.8 as their DNS server)


pgpY_nGGoizLn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Ricky Beam]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:21:14 -0500, Jon Lewis  wrote:

Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number.


And it's not "native". A great many (myself included) have IPv6 *by  
choice* through various tunnels. And AT&T (Uverse) isn't "native" either  
-- it's a 6rd tunnel their gateways have been programmed to setup  
automatically (based on the public IPv4 address.)


If Brighthouse has people on-list...you're embarrassingly late to this  
party...


And Earthlink ("Eye Pee Vee What?"), and TWTC (pre-L3), and TWC ("not  
available on that node", and "not available through that gateway"), and  
Sprint, etc. etc. etc. etc. Verizon _Wireless_, yes. Verizon FiOS, NO.  
Verizon Business (f.k.a. UUNet), "maybe".


That's the issue for Fortune 500's. They ("we") care more about cost than  
feature. IPv6 isn't valuable enough to justify the added expense for an  
ISP that does have their act together. (which, in my experience, is "no  
one".) And Amazon doesn't do IPv6, at all; so there you are.


--Ricky

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

> 
> 
> Add to that the fact that as we run closer to (or further into?) run-out, at 
> some point there's likely to be a rapid acceleration in v6 provisioning as 
> networks finally realize that they can't reasonably get any more v4 space or 
> their end-user customers finally begin to demand v6.
> 
> If Brighthouse has people on-list...you're embarrassingly late to this 
> party...and its time to start calling out end-user providers that still don't 
> even offer v6.

Here’s the thing, from my perspective (and I’ve been doing this for a while and 
I think I have a pretty good perspective from talking to a lot of people from 
all different levels and areas of involved)…

Eyeball providers have an inherent forcing function. They _WILL_ run out of 
IPv4 addresses and they will have no choice but to start bringing up some new 
customers on IPv6. They will eventually need to recycle addresses allocated to 
current customers to things like CGN if they still have to maintain IPv4 
connectivity for their customers.

The real focus that needs to move now is content.

Check out http://www.delong.com/ipv6_alexa500.html 
 and/or 
http://www.delong.com/ipv6_fortune500.html 
 for a look at how this is going… 
It’s _NOT_ good.

18% (90) of the top 500 web sites even have an  record for the domain name.
Interestingly, there are 18 more sites (108, still 18%) that have  records 
for www.domain name.

Unfortunately, only 13.8% (69) of those return a status 200 in response to a 
query for the domain name
and only 16.2% (81) for www.domain name as of this writing.

For the fortune 500, it’s even more bleak. 13 sites (2.63%) have  records 
with only 9 (1.82%) of them
returning status 200.

These numbers might be slightly pessimistic because 3XX series responses are 
not counted as good.

So long as the content situation remains this bad, there is no option to turn 
off IPv4 at the eyeball level.

Additionally, there’s a large volume of consumer devices that are IPv4 only 
still being produced. This is a huge problem.

IMHO, that’s the truly critical issue.

Eyeball providers that haven’t started to move yet are much more capable of an 
accelerated deployment using a well trod path at this point and will have more 
than ample motivation relatively soon.

On the content side, however, so far the motivations are somewhat limited and 
require vision and foresight which is often lacking in corporate leadership.

Owen

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Neil Harris]

On 04/01/16 16:09, Ca By wrote:

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Neil Harris  wrote:


On 02/01/16 15:35, Tomas Podermanski wrote:


Hi,

  according to Google's statistics
(https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st December
2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just a
little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December we also
celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC 1883.

I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-)

Tomas



Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is following a
logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for neatness, I get:

Jan 2016: 10%
Jan 2017: 20%
Jan 2018: 33%
Jan 2019: 50%
Jan 2020: 67%
Jan 2021: 80%
Jan 2022: 90%

with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4
switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027.

Neil



Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number.

The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices.

Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply extends the
past onto the future.  It does not account for purposeful engineering
design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates.

For example, once Apple cleanses the app store of IPv4 apps in 2016 as they
have committed and pushes one of their ubiquitous iOS updates, you may see
substantial jumps over night in IPv6 eyeballs, possibly meaningful moving
that 37% number to over 50% in a few shorts weeks.

This will squarely make it clear that IPv4 is minority legacy protocol for
all of mobile, and thusly the immediate future of the internet.

CB



Absolutely. So these figures should be regarded as conservative.

The logistic growth model is just the default model choice for 
predicting new-things-replacing-old transitions. Any number of things 
could make the transition go faster, particularly, as you say, pushes by 
major platform vendors like Apple, and the move to mobile first in the 
expansion of the Internet in the developing world. Companies like search 
engine providers and streaming video providers could also exert pressure 
to speed up the IPv6 transition, if they wished. Also, passing 
psychological thresholds like 50% or 90% -- or even just fashion, in the 
sense of decision makers wanting to be associated with success and the 
future, not the rapidly contracting legacy of the past -- might have an 
effect to accelerate the eventual collapse of IPv4 traffic volumes.


I can only imagine the scale of the schadenfreude IPv6 proponents will 
be able to feel once they're able to start talking about IPv4 as a 
legacy protocol.


Neil

RE: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Jacques Latour]

Great news and even more impressive is that Canada is the fastest adopter with 
~8% IPv6 penetration, growing from almost 0.5% to 8% in 3 months!!!.  See 
http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CA

Telus is making a big difference in Canada as the IPv6 adoption leader @ ~45% 
IPv6 adoption.http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS852?c=CA&g=&w=1&x=1

Hint, hint, subliminal message here for all Canadian ISPs, IPv6 works  ;-)

So let's shutdown IPv4 on April 4, 2024 

Bonne Année!



> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jared Mauch
> Sent: January-04-16 11:28 AM
> To: Ca By
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration
> 
> 
> > On Jan 4, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Ca By  wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Neil Harris 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 02/01/16 15:35, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> according to Google's statistics
> >>> (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st
> >>> December
> >>> 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just
> >>> a little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December
> >>> we also celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC
> 1883.
> >>>
> >>> I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-)
> >>>
> >>> Tomas
> >> Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is
> >> following a logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for
> neatness, I get:
> >>
> >> Jan 2016: 10%
> >> Jan 2017: 20%
> >> Jan 2018: 33%
> >> Jan 2019: 50%
> >> Jan 2020: 67%
> >> Jan 2021: 80%
> >> Jan 2022: 90%
> >>
> >> with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4
> >> switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027.
> >>
> >> Neil
> > Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number.
> >
> > The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices.
> >
> > Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply extends
> > the past onto the future.  It does not account for purposeful
> > engineering design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates.
> >
> > For example, once Apple cleanses the app store of IPv4 apps in 2016 as
> > they have committed and pushes one of their ubiquitous iOS updates,
> > you may see substantial jumps over night in IPv6 eyeballs, possibly
> > meaningful moving that 37% number to over 50% in a few shorts weeks.
> >
> > This will squarely make it clear that IPv4 is minority legacy protocol
> > for all of mobile, and thusly the immediate future of the internet.
> 
> I for one welcome the iOS update that brings v6 APN native access to my
> phone, or at least v4v6 APN setting.
> 
> I keep hearing rumors it is "coming soon".
> 
> This could have a similar step function in the traffic and graphs.

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Jared Mauch]

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Ca By  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Neil Harris  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 02/01/16 15:35, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> according to Google's statistics
>>> (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st December
>>> 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just a
>>> little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December we also
>>> celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC 1883.
>>> 
>>> I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-)
>>> 
>>> Tomas
>> Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is following a
>> logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for neatness, I get:
>> 
>> Jan 2016: 10%
>> Jan 2017: 20%
>> Jan 2018: 33%
>> Jan 2019: 50%
>> Jan 2020: 67%
>> Jan 2021: 80%
>> Jan 2022: 90%
>> 
>> with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4
>> switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027.
>> 
>> Neil
> Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number.
> 
> The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices.
> 
> Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply extends the
> past onto the future.  It does not account for purposeful engineering
> design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates.
> 
> For example, once Apple cleanses the app store of IPv4 apps in 2016 as they
> have committed and pushes one of their ubiquitous iOS updates, you may see
> substantial jumps over night in IPv6 eyeballs, possibly meaningful moving
> that 37% number to over 50% in a few shorts weeks.
> 
> This will squarely make it clear that IPv4 is minority legacy protocol for
> all of mobile, and thusly the immediate future of the internet.

I for one welcome the iOS update that brings v6 APN native access to my phone, 
or at least v4v6 APN setting. 

I keep hearing rumors it is "coming soon". 

This could have a similar step function in the traffic and graphs. 

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Jon Lewis]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Ca By wrote:


Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is following a
logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for neatness, I get:

Jan 2016: 10%
Jan 2017: 20%
Jan 2018: 33%
Jan 2019: 50%
Jan 2020: 67%
Jan 2021: 80%
Jan 2022: 90%

with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4
switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027.

Neil



Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number.

The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices.

Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply extends the
past onto the future.  It does not account for purposeful engineering
design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates.


Add to that the fact that as we run closer to (or further into?) run-out, 
at some point there's likely to be a rapid acceleration in v6 provisioning 
as networks finally realize that they can't reasonably get any more v4 
space or their end-user customers finally begin to demand v6.


If Brighthouse has people on-list...you're embarrassingly late to this 
party...and its time to start calling out end-user providers that still 
don't even offer v6.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Ca By]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Neil Harris  wrote:

> On 02/01/16 15:35, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>  according to Google's statistics
>> (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st December
>> 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just a
>> little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December we also
>> celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC 1883.
>>
>> I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-)
>>
>> Tomas
>>
>>
> Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is following a
> logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for neatness, I get:
>
> Jan 2016: 10%
> Jan 2017: 20%
> Jan 2018: 33%
> Jan 2019: 50%
> Jan 2020: 67%
> Jan 2021: 80%
> Jan 2022: 90%
>
> with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4
> switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027.
>
> Neil
>
>
Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number.

The number in the USA is 25% today in general, is 37% for mobile devices.

Furthermore, forecasting is a dark art that frequently simply extends the
past onto the future.  It does not account for purposeful engineering
design like the "world IPv6 launch" or iOS updates.

For example, once Apple cleanses the app store of IPv4 apps in 2016 as they
have committed and pushes one of their ubiquitous iOS updates, you may see
substantial jumps over night in IPv6 eyeballs, possibly meaningful moving
that 37% number to over 50% in a few shorts weeks.

This will squarely make it clear that IPv4 is minority legacy protocol for
all of mobile, and thusly the immediate future of the internet.

CB

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Neil Harris]

On 02/01/16 15:35, Tomas Podermanski wrote:

Hi,

 according to Google's statistics
(https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st December
2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just a
little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December we also
celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC 1883.

I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-)

Tomas



Given the recent doubling growth, and assuming this trend is following a 
logistic function, then, rounding the numbers a bit for neatness, I get:


Jan 2016: 10%
Jan 2017: 20%
Jan 2018: 33%
Jan 2019: 50%
Jan 2020: 67%
Jan 2021: 80%
Jan 2022: 90%

with IPv4 traffic then halving year by year from then on, and IPv4 
switch-off (ie. traffic < 1%) around 2027.


Neil

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[A . L . M . Buxey]

Hi,

> I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-)

half of us will celebrate, the other half will cry  ;-)

alan