nanog mailing list archives
Re: MAP-T
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2022 11:23:17 +0100
Bjørn Mork wrote on 27/03/2022 10:42:
Yes, for traditional mobile (i.e handsets) the picture is completely different. Same view shows an average of 85% IPv6 on mobile access: https://munin.fud.no/vg.no/www.vg.no/vg_ds_telenor_mobil.html
from the point of view of cgnat scaling, a more useful figure would be the number of ipv6 "sessions" vs natted ipv4 sessions. It's well established that many of the highest volume traffic sources on the internet are ipv6 enabled, but the long tail is definitely not. I.e. throughput is not necessarily a useful data point for substantiating many of the claims that are made here and elsewhere about ipv6 popularity.
Nick
Current thread:
- MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) Jared Brown (Mar 25)
- RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Mar 25)
- Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Mar 25)
- v6ops-transition-comparison (was: Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)) John Curran (Mar 26)
- Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) John Levine (Mar 26)
- Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Mar 26)
- Re: MAP-T Bjørn Mork (Mar 27)
- Re: MAP-T Nick Hilliard (Mar 27)
- Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Mar 25)
- RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Mar 25)
- RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Mar 25)
- Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) Ben Plimpton (Mar 31)