IPv6 traffic percentages?

Sun Jan 24 15:23:33 UTC 2016

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 6:14 AM, nanog-isp at mail.com wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their percentage of IPv6 traffic?
> 
> Bonus points for sharing top IPv6 sources. Anything else than the usual suspects, Google/YouTube, Netflix and Facebook?
> 
> Some public information I've found so far:
> - Comcast around 25% IPv6 traffic ( http://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/ip-protocols-software/facebook-ipv6-is-a-real-world-big-deal/a/d-id/718395 )
> - Comcast has over 1 Tb/s (of mostly YouTube traffic) over IPv6 ( http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network )
> - Swisscom 26% IPv6 traffic, 60% YouTube ( http://www.swinog.ch/meetings/swinog27/p/01_Martin_Gysi.pdf )
> 
> I'd be very much interested in hearing from smaller ISPs, especially those having a very limited number of IPv4 addresses and/or running out. 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jared

This is some more public info.

On this page click to sort on IPv6 deployment.

	http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/

About 40% of traffic inbound to our University is IPv6.  I see several Universities on the list above at more than 60%.

There are more links to public info sites at the bottom of the page.

You can add Apple and Microsoft to the list of usual suspects, but for state in NAT boxes rather than traffic.  With happy eyeballs devices query both IPv4 and IPv6 so end up creating state in the NAT box even if the client ultimately chooses IPv6 for the connection.  We have lots of devices that like to check with Apple whenever they wake up and the staff here use Microsoft Exchange in the cloud which is available via IPv6.  I don’t have any verified data but I have noticed a relation between 

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will see that my latency to Google via IPv6 dropped from 40 ms to 20 ms. 

http://mcnet.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu/smokeping/?target=Internet.Google_IPv6

 If I compare some days before and after the change I see a decrease in my peak NAT pool usage.  However on other days I don’t see a difference.   The theory is that after my latency dropped to 20 ms that should be less than the magical 25 ms for Apple devices to receive an answer via IPv6 so they don’t even send out an IPv4 query.

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg22455.html

  This link mentions that Microsoft is already preferring IPv6 over IPv4 95% of the time when both are available.

http://labs.apnic.net/?p=657

I’m 30 ms away from Facebook so 95% of Microsoft clients would use IPv6 but for Apple devices it’s a gamble.   But it’s not clear if 95% of Microsoft clients would only send an IPv6 SYN and not send an IPv4 SYN (saving NAT table size).

The top of our wish list would be for twitter and AWS to support IPv6, I think that those would make the biggest reduction in our NAT table size.

If you hover your mouse over the US on this page

	http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/

it lists 47% for content.  What that 47% means is explained here.

	http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/information.php#content

It is fun to play with the type of regression on this page and project 730 days or so in the future.

https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/project.php

---
Bruce Curtis                         bruce.curtis at ndsu.edu
Certified NetAnalyst II                701-231-8527
North Dakota State University        