IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

["Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>]

Hi, Ryan:

1)     " ... it accounts for 40% of the traffic at Google.   ":

    Perhaps you were referring to the following?

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

2)    If so, your quotation is correct, except there are some hidden 
stories below the surface:

    A.    When you Google for it with key words "IPv6 Traffic Google", 
the first hit shows "IPv6 *_/Adoption/_*" that lead to the above. So, 
strictly speaking, it is _/*not traffic */_data that you are looking at.

    B.    Above the actual graph, you will find statements, such as " 
... the *_/availability of IPv6 connectivity/_*_/**/_among Google users. 
...." So, legally, the graph is correct on its own right, but may not be 
exactly what you thought. Reader be aware!

    It implies that the graph the IPv6 capability (equipment readiness) 
of Google users, not necessarily the actual traffic they generate. The 
two do not equate to each other.
3)    However, the above did seem to support what was generally said in 
the public. Until, we found an interesting ongoing (the only one of such 
resource that is updated about every ten minutes) statistics by AMS-IX 
(AMSterdam Internet eXchange) :

https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ipv6.html

https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html
a
    The second URL shows that IPv6 accounts for approximately 5.7% of 
the overall Internet traffic that AMS-IX sees today. If one traces back 
through the archived data, the earlier numbers were even much lower. In 
fact, those graphs looked meaningless, because there was hardly any 
visible trace colored for IPv6. This has been going on for at least the 
last one decade. So, it could not be an error.

4)    We contacted AMS-IX for a possible explanation of the obvious 
discrepancy. They politely referred us to our own ISPs. This triggered 
our curiosity. We decided that we needed to find the full world-wide 
IPv6 traffic data.

5)    There was an annual world-wide Internet traffic statistics and 
forecast published by Cisco that stopped after 2017 (see URL below to 
the last issue). We contacted Cisco in 2020 and got an eMail confirmation.

https://cloud.report/Resources/Whitepapers/eea79d9b-9fe3-4018-86c6-3d1df813d3b8_white-paper-c11-741490.pdf

6)    However, there has never been any equivalent publication for the 
IPv6 by itself that we could locate.

7)    In search for a possible explanation of the discrepancy between 
Pts. 1) & 3), we came across the following article. In brief, it 
reported that the Peering agreements among Internet backbone providers 
were less settled for IPv6 than IPv4. Thus, higher percentage of IPv6 
traffic than that of IPv4 should have been directed through the IXs 
(Internet eXchanges), such as AMS-IX.

https://www.theregister.com/2018/08/28/ipv6_peering_squabbles/

8)    The conclusion of Pt. 7) furthered our puzzlement, because it was 
opposite to what we were hoping for. That is, the roughly 5.7% IPv6 
traffic that AMS-IX sees implies that within the overall Internet, the 
IPv6 traffic should be even less than 5.7%, not as high as Google's 40+% 
(Adoption) rate. Since we did not have the resources to further the 
research on this topic, we saved the above summary to share with anyone 
interested in pursuing for a better understanding. It will be much 
appreciated, if you could share your insights of this topic.

Regards,


Abe (2024-01-14 22:49 EST)




On 2024-01-12 09:20, Ryan Hamel wrote:
> Abraham,
>
> It has existed for many years, already supported on many devices, does 
> not require NAT, address space is plentiful, does not require 
> additional proposals, and it accounts for 40% of the traffic at Google.
>
> Ryan
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2024 3:45:32 AM
> *To:* Ryan Hamel <ryan () rkhtech org>
> *Cc:* nanog () nanog org <nanog () nanog org>; Michael Butler 
> <imb () protected-networks net>; Chen, Abraham Y. <AYChen () alum MIT edu>
> *Subject:* IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 
> address block
>
>         
> Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take 
> care when clicking links or opening attachments.
>
>
> Hi, Ryan:
>
> 1)   " ...  Save yourself the time and effort on this and implement 
> IPv6.    ":
>
>     What is your selling point?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-12 06:44)


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com