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

["Forrest Christian (List Account)" <lists () packetflux com>]

If 50٪ of the servers and 50% of the clients can do IPv6, the amount of
IPv6 traffic will be around 25% since both ends have to do IPv6.

If you're running an IPv6 enabled server you'll see 50% of your traffic as
IPv6 in the above scenario.   Likewise, if you are on an IPv6 connected
client, then you'll also see 50٪ of your traffic as IPv6.

Note that if your adoption rates are lower, say 30% and 40%, your IPv6
traffic will be lower..  around 12% in the 30/40٪ scenario.

Cloudflare has an interesting analysis.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/ipv6-from-dns-pov#:~:text=IPv6%20Adoption%20on%20the%20Server%20Side,-The%20following%20graph&text=IPv6%20adoption%20by%20servers%20is,what%20was%20observed%20for%20clients
.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2024, 8:51 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com> wrote:

> 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> <aychen () avinta com>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2024 3:45:32 AM
> *To:* Ryan Hamel <ryan () rkhtech org> <ryan () rkhtech org>
> *Cc:* nanog () nanog org <nanog () nanog org> <nanog () nanog org>; Michael Butler
> <imb () protected-networks net> <imb () protected-networks net>; Chen, Abraham
> Y. <AYChen () alum MIT edu> <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)
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_-185959041418492683_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>