V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

Fri Mar 11 16:19:40 UTC 2022

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 7:15 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:

> Dear Ca By:
>
> 1)    It appears that you are reading the Google graph too optimistically,
> or incorrectly. That is, the highest peaks of the graph are about 38%. The
> average of the graph is about 36%. Citing "over 40%" from these is a gross
> exaggeration. In fact, the peaks were reached on weekends and holidays due
> to more residential usage, you can clearly see such by zooming into the
> graph. In addition, the graph has been exhibiting an asymptomatic trend
> ever since a few years back. The COVID-19 pushed this graph up a bit due to
> the lock-down and work-from-home factors. Below was an analysis
> pre-pandemic:
>

Sorry for being imprecise in my communication, the number is 46% in the USA.

>
> https://circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/
>
> 2)    Since Google is one of the stronger IPv6 promoters, usage of IPv6
> outside of the Google domain can only be lower, by simple logic deduction.
>
>
Google’s number represents how many users reach it over ipv6. Given
Google’s ubiquity in the usa, it is a fair barometer for the usa at large.
This data is helpful for content providers  estimating demand for ipv6 (46%
of users will use ipv6 if it is available)  and for the network operator
community to understand where their peers sit.

In summary, there is a lot of ipv6 on the usa internet today. Almost half
for Google, per their published numbers. Over 75% end to end ipv6 on some
large mobile networks.  Hence my appeal to view published data.

Reading anecdotal Nanog mails from a handful of folks concluding ipv6 has
failed will not leave the passive impartial observer with an accurate view.

Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2022-03-11 10:11)
>
>
> ------------------------------
> NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 12
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:00:17 -0800
> From: Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> <cb.list6 at gmail.com>
> To: Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> <saku at ytti.fi>
> Cc: Joe Greco <jgreco at ns.sol.net> <jgreco at ns.sol.net>, nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members
> 	(was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4
> 	NetBlock))
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAD6AjGTyQT-OMq_KXxFe-sozWq3mSJ5gC_tKswdpJpi7mMEwFQ at mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTyQT-OMq_KXxFe-sozWq3mSJ5gC_tKswdpJpi7mMEwFQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56 PM Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco <jgreco at ns.sol.net> <jgreco at ns.sol.net> wrote:
>
>
> I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still
> heavily v4.  Mind boggling.
>
> Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll
> be the same in 2042, we fucked up and those who come after us pay the
> price of the insane amount of work and cost dual stack causes.
>
> It is solvable, easily and cheaply, like most problems (energy,
> climate), but not when so many poor leaders participate in decision
> making.
>
> --
>   ++ytti
>
> Ah, the quarterly ipv6 thread? where i remind you all? most of the USA is
> on ipv6 (all your smartphone, many of your home router, a growing amount of
> your clouds [i see you aws])
> https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/
>
> Google sees over 40% of their users on ipv6, with superior latency
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
>
>
>  -------------- next part --------------
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
> <#m_6390985030485347940_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220311/be92b124/attachment.html>