Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google

["Marshall Eubanks" <tme () multicasttech com>]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:35:14 +0200
 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet () consulintel es> wrote:
> It seems that the list doesn't like the attachments, anyway, the text show
> the results for the awstats.

I believe that the same paper can be obtained for free from

http://www.6net.org/publications/papers/csc-6to4.pdf

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

P.S. I may have inadvertantly sent a blank  reply to the  list just before
this. (My web based email hiccuped.) If so, I apologize.

> Hi,
>
> Sorry the late answer, traveling and overbooked ... My reply below, in-line.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
> > De: Paul G <paul () rusko us>
> > Responder a: <owner-nanog () merit edu>
> > Fecha: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:54:25 -0400
> > Para: <nanog () merit edu>
> > Asunto: Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- 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 ;]
>
> The paper is here:
>
> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1052812.1052821
>
> I also know the author, and I'm sure is not exaggerating.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Just look at the attached stats from this year in one of our web sites. Just
> one, and not the one which has the bigger ratio of IPv6 vs. IPv4 traffic. Is
> not an IPv6 site, just one of our customers. Can't say how much
> representative is vs. Internet traffic, but for me is enough.
>
> The file total.tiff includes ALL the traffic to the server (IPv4 and IPv6),
> while the other one (ipv6_only) is just IPv6 traffic. If you compare what is
> only IPv4 (total-IPv6) vs. IPv6, we have:
>
>         IPv4        IPv6        %
> Users   118.41 GB   10.38 GB    8.77
> Robots  253.65 GB    2.64 GB    1.04
>
> Conclusion: The users traffic is rising. No robots support IPv6 today
> (probably this could change with people like Google and others doing IPv6).
>
> Different conclusions can be extracted looking at the number of visitors,
> visits, pages, hits, etc.
>
> Is clear, that this depends on the user profile, may be even the region ? In
> some regions the awareness has been much stronger (and probably successful)
> and more users turn on IPv6 in their clients.
>
> > > 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?
>
> I disagree here. If the clients have IPv6 support, even if tunneled, which
> is enabled most of the time automatically (6to4, Teredo, others), the
> traffic is already increasing specially peer to peer. Of course, the quality
> is not so good as having native support, but some times it works much better
> that having to trouble with NAT boxes and so on.
>
> > -p
> >
> > ---
> > paul galynin
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>
> Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
> Information available at:
> http://www.ipv6-es.com
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The
> information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
> this information, including attached files, is prohibited.