David Kessens wrote:
Joe,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:11AM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote:
I'm not aware of DNS block lists which cover IPv6 address spaces at
this time, probably in part because IPv6 traffic remains de minimis
(see http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/8/the-end-is-near-but-is-
Harald,
Your Half percent is great!
When Tim Berners-Lee presented the www at the JENC conference in
Insbruck in 1992, he said that according to the traffic mesurement
statistics, the www-related trafic is around half percent.
What was the ratio two years later? 40%
Half percent is a good "star
Sorry, I misremembered.
The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia,
Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6.
Presentation available from
http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html.
Harald
Turchanyi Geza wrote
Am 11.11.2008 um 22:34 schrieb Harald Alvestrand:
8% - only Russia, Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6.
Presentation available from http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html
.
wow , i am impressed 0.76% , so russia has more overall ipv6 traffic
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia, Ukraine and
France have more than 0.5% IPv6.
Presentation available from
http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html.
Depends on what you're look
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia,
Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6.
Presentation available from
http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html.
Depe
RRs are no better in that respect either.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Wed 11/12/2008 5:06 AM
To: Pekka Savola
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 traffic stats
Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Har
Thanks,
Peter
--- On Wed, 11/12/08, Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: IPv6 traffic stats
> To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PR
I've been looking at this as well and reported on the relative amount
of IPv6 traffic over the past 4 years at the most recent NANOG (http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2008-10-13-ipv6-deployment.pdf
)
in recent times I am also seeing 0.5% of hosts preferring to use IPv6
to access a dual-s
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia,
> Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6.
>
> Presentation available from
> http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thurs
On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Sorry, I misremembered.
The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia,
Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6.
Presentation available from http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index
On 12 nov 2008, at 21:09, Pekka Savola wrote:
If an implementation implements RFC3484 and the user is not using
custom address selection policy, all compliant RFC3484
implementations should prefer v4 when connecting to native from 6to4
(rule 5 of destination address selection AFAIR).
In m
On 12 nov 2008, at 21:17, Danny McPherson wrote:
Indeed, and according to the same stats,
• 0.238% of users have useful IPv6 connectivity (and prefer IPv6)
• 0.09% of users have broken IPv6 connectivity
Nearly 38% of that .238% is broken...
No, 0.238% is the working IPv6 users, so the to
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>Iljitsch van Beijnum
>On 12 nov 2008, at 21:17, Danny McPherson wrote:
>> Indeed, and according to the same stats,
>> . 0.238% of users have useful IPv6 connectivity (and prefer IPv6) .
>> 0.09% of users h
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
In my opinion, this is a bug. This is the default policy table from a FreeBSD
system, which is the RFC 3484 table IIRC:
You should probably bring this up on 6MAN WG list then.
ip6addrctl
Prefix Prec Label Use
: :
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Rémi Després wrote:
If an implementation implements RFC3484 and the user is not using custom
address selection policy, all compliant RFC3484 implementations should
prefer v4 when connecting to native from 6to4 (rule 5 of destination
address selection AFAIR).
Actually, m
Pekka Savola (1-12/1-31/200x) 11/12/08 9:09 PM:
If an implementation implements RFC3484 and the user is not using
custom address selection policy, all compliant RFC3484 implementations
should prefer v4 when connecting to native from 6to4 (rule 5 of
destination address selection AFAIR).
Can we
Joe,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:11AM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote:
>
> I'm not aware of DNS block lists which cover IPv6 address spaces at
> this time, probably in part because IPv6 traffic remains de minimis
> (see http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/8/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/
> showing I
David mentioned:
#For the record:
#
#It seems that arbornetworks estimates are extremely low to the point
#where one has to ask whether there were other issues that caused such
#a low estimate.
#
#There is no question that IPv6 traffic is quite low in the Internet.
#However, many other reports th
On Nov 11, 2008, at 11:57 AM, David Kessens wrote:
Joe,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:11AM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote:
I'm not aware of DNS block lists which cover IPv6 address spaces at
this time, probably in part because IPv6 traffic remains de minimis
(see http://asert.arbornetworks.com/
Danny,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 01:15:07PM -0700, Danny McPherson wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2008, at 11:57 AM, David Kessens wrote:
>>
>> It seems that arbornetworks estimates are extremely low to the point
>> where one has to ask whether there were other issues that caused such
>> a low estimate.
>
>
Joe,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:12:53PM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote:
> David mentioned:
>
> On the other hand, just to put this in context and to pick on an
> application I'm somewhat familiar with, a single full-ish Usenet news
> feed is now in excess of 3TByte/day (see the daily volume stats
On Nov 12,
The report as presented at the RIPE meeting indeed mentions the
possibility of undercounting. However, it appears that there is an
undercount of several orders of magnitude. At that point you really
cannot claim that the report provides a perspective on Internet IPv6
traffic as it d
Danny,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 06:11:11PM -0700, Danny McPherson wrote:
>
> I look forward to any credible data that you can provide
> to support wider adoption, or being made aware of any
> unacknowledged issues with our methodology.
As I mentioned in another mail to the ietf list today:
vari
"Danny McPherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To be clear, our attempt with this study was to measure
> observable IPv6 traffic in production networks across a
> large number of production ISP networks. It was not to
> discredit IPv6 in any way, quite the contrary.
That's great and it will be e
To: Joe St Sauver
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 traffic stats (was: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl(DNS
Blacklists and Whitelists))
Joe,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:12:53PM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote:
> David mentioned:
>
> On the other hand, just to put this in context an
26 matches
Mail list logo
