Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google

["Paul G" <paul () rusko us>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet () consulintel es>
To: <nanog () nanog org>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google

> The last figure that I remember, very impressive, was in April 2004, when
> the estimated number of hosts using 6to4 on Windows hosts was calculated
as
> 100.000.000 (extrapolated from measurements). This is not including hosts
> with have native support or use other transition mechanism such as
> configured tunnels, ISATAP, 6over4, or Teredo (behind NAT).

this figure seems to be completely over the top. i would be interested in
seeing those 'measurements', an explanation of why they are statistically
representative and the method of extrapolation. perhaps it was a typo and,
instead of 'extrapolation', they really meant 'exaggeration'? that would
make more sense ;]

> We notice in our web servers (which are dual stack), incredible amounts of
> IPv6 traffic, increasing month by month.

please define incredible using a non-subjective measurement system -
absolute counts and percentages of total traffic will do. as stated above, i
would likewise be interested in knowing how representative your traffic is
of general internet usage. as an example, i would expect web servers for an
incredibly popular site discussing v6 to have a disproportionate amount of
v6 traffic.

> Do you want to guess what will happen with Vista, which comes with IPv6
> enabled by default ?

i don't like guessing, but if i were pressed, drunk or otherwise
intoxicated, i'd say default support in client software is not the single
bottleneck - being able to purchase v6 transit and have your v6 work as well
as your v4 is another one that you can't really get around. i'm not up to
date on these things, has someone figured out how we're multihoming with v6
yet and, more importantly, got vendors to agree on and implement it?

-p

---
paul galynin