<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="4">Hi, Fred:</font></p>
<font size="4"> </font>
<p><font size="4">0) Thanks for sharing your references to IPv6
statistics.</font></p>
<font size="4"> </font>
<p><font size="4">1) However, you might have looked this topic
too deeply and missed the overview. Through our study of EzIP,
we have discovered two aspects of this topic that frequently
mislead readers:</font></p>
<p><font size="4"> A. IPv6 equipment <b><i>Capability</i></b>
vs. IPv6 traffic <b><i>Volume</i></b>: The former is about
equipment "readiness". The latter is about the actual traffic
"amount". High value of the former does not necessarily imply
the same to the latter. Without explicitly stating which one is
being presented, wasteful debates based on these numbers
persist. In fact, this is where the big smoke screen that our
team had to go through to finally see more clearly about the
true reference that we have to base upon. </font></p>
<p><font size="4"> B. The scope of the candidates for the
source data set: Comparisons of the incident type needs to
find the largest domain, not several sub-domains, to extract
data from. This is important because an author can pick up a few
datasets that support the "theory", while overlooking others
that may be more significant and introduce counter views. This
is also tricky, because how can one tell which type of domain is
bigger than the others? Since we are discussing a global event,
any domain that implies worldwide coverage is much more
trustworthy than multiple </font><font size="4"><font size="4">full
datasets, each is </font>country-based .</font></p>
<p><font size="4">2) Although all of your citations contain
"IPv6", some even include "status", none of them clearly defines
which one of the two choices in Pt. 1) A. it is referring to.
Except, the browser tab of the following reads "IPv6 <b><i>Capability</i></b>
Metrics". This confirms, at least to me, that you have been
looking at Capabilities instead of Volume. The former tends to
show much higher numbers because it is just a report of how many
devices online are ready to use IPv6 (I heard that such
indication is carried in the IP packet somewhere?). This is
because when users actually use IPv6, it then contributes to the
Volume statistics. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1&s=1&p=1&w=30&c=IN">https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1&s=1&p=1&w=30&c=IN</a></font></p>
<p><font size="4">3) Allow me to share with you the IPv6
statistics that we have been following. On top of the two
criteria in Pt. 1) above, we also look for consistency through
time, i.e., track records such as how long and how frequently
the data is updated.</font></p>
<p><font size="4"> A. IPv6 Deployment / Readiness: The
following has been updated every few days for quite sometime.
Whatever metrics that it is based upon, we can assume that it is
applied worldwide. This appears to be a superset of what you
cited.</font> </p>
<p><font size="4"> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/">https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/</a></font></p>
<p><font size="4"> B. IPv6 Traffic Volume: There was an annual
report series by Cisco. But, the last one was in 2017. We could
not find any later versions. Interestingly, Cisco TechSupport
confirmed so. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cloud.report/Resources/Whitepapers/eea79d9b-9fe3-4018-86c6-3d1df813d3b8_white-paper-c11-741490.pdf">https://cloud.report/Resources/Whitepapers/eea79d9b-9fe3-4018-86c6-3d1df813d3b8_white-paper-c11-741490.pdf</a></font></p>
<p><font size="4">4) These days, we primarily monitor the
following two statistics to keep up with the IPv6 performance
status:</font></p>
<p><font size="4"> A. Google IPv6 Adoption: This is a daily
report that goes back to 2008 Oct. The current peak is around
38%, while the average is around 36%. Also, a very interesting
phenomenon can be observed if you zoom into a small segment of
the graph. It shows the weekly fluctuations that peak during
weekends or holidays when users are mostly accessing Google
services from homes. In fact, the lock-down during the COVID-19
pandemic pushed the average up notably. Although this is only
within Google, it is a worldwide statistics. More importantly,
Google is one of the stronger IPv6 promoters. Similar statistics
from other business should logically be capped by this graph.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html">https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html</a></font></p>
<p><font size="4"> B. AMS-IX Traffic Statistics: There are
various measurements that are constantly (between every 7 to 15
minutes) updated. The URL below leads you to a set of composite
graphs showing the percentages of various type of protocols
being transported through AMS-IX. What you will find in the
below graph is that IPv6 Traffic is only around 4.5% which is in
the 10% range of that in the Google graph above. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4"> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html">https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html</a></font></p>
<p><font size="4">5) Pt. 4) B. is a surprise statistics. We have
not been able to pin-point exactly how could this happen. Two
factors should be kept in mind:</font></p>
<p><font size="4"> A. AMS-IX may not be the largest IX
(Internet eXchange), but their operation is worldwide. They are
the only business of this kind that has been providing the
continuous reports (This kind of reports have been going on for
ages. AMS-IX does not provide archived data. But, you can search
Archive.org for historical data as far back as 2010-06.). So, we
believe that this is more reliable than others.</font></p>
<p><font size="4"> B. IX businesses take the overflow traffic
from Internet backbone carriers' peering arrangements. So, the
ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 could be different from the bulk in
the core. However, one historical event (see URL below) hints
that the IPv6 traffic on AMS-IX should have been even lower than
what is reported if its peering agreements had been settled in a
similar manner as those for IPv4. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theregister.com/2018/08/28/ipv6_peering_squabbles/">https://www.theregister.com/2018/08/28/ipv6_peering_squabbles/</a></font></p>
<p><font size="4">Hope this run-down of background and history
enable us to synchronize our perspective of the IPv6 status.</font></p>
<p><font size="4"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4">Regards,</font></p>
<p><font size="4"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4">Abe (2022-03-14 14:04)</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">------------------------------
NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 15
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:06:51 -0700
From: Fred Baker <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com"><fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com></a>
To: Joe Maimon <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com"><jmaimon@jmaimon.com></a>, "Chen, Abraham Y."
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:AYChen@alum.mit.edu"><AYChen@alum.mit.edu></a>, "Abraham Y. Chen" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:aychen@avinta.com"><aychen@avinta.com></a>, Ca By
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com"><cb.list6@gmail.com></a>
Cc: NANOG <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org"><nanog@nanog.org></a>
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:7E0B159F-43AC-4507-8FB9-3120B2B9046A@gmail.com"><7E0B159F-43AC-4507-8FB9-3120B2B9046A@gmail.com></a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Mar 11, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Joe Maimon <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com"><jmaimon@jmaimon.com></a> wrote:
Google's statistics...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I'm not sure which of you I'm replying to. The comment was made on NANOG the other day that we should discount Google statistics because they have been promoting IPv6 for a decade. It's true that they have been doing so. But they aren't the only people with statistics.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=in,my,sa,be,de,fr,gr,vn,tw,gf,zz,us,jp,th,br,mx,ae,lk,uy,hu,lu,fi,il,pt,gt,ch,gp,gb,mq,nl,ca,ee,ec,re,au,np,tt,at,ro,ga,ie,no,gy,bt,py,pe,kw,sx,mm,nz,co,cz,bo,ni,tg,ph,pl,sg,is,ar,kr,om,cl,sv,jm,si,mo,se,lv,jo,cg,ba,lc,zw,ir,id,md,hn,by,sk,al,rw,pf,ge,bz,dk,ru,hr,rs,it,vc,ke">https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=in,my,sa,be,de,fr,gr,vn,tw,gf,zz,us,jp,th,br,mx,ae,lk,uy,hu,lu,fi,il,pt,gt,ch,gp,gb,mq,nl,ca,ee,ec,re,au,np,tt,at,ro,ga,ie,no,gy,bt,py,pe,kw,sx,mm,nz,co,cz,bo,ni,tg,ph,pl,sg,is,ar,kr,om,cl,sv,jm,si,mo,se,lv,jo,cg,ba,lc,zw,ir,id,md,hn,by,sk,al,rw,pf,ge,bz,dk,ru,hr,rs,it,vc,ke</a>
You might look at the following links. Eric Vyncke has been putting up charts basically on Google, Akamai, and APNIC statistics for a while. One thing to consider is that around 90 countries (92 in this capture, as low as 89 a couple of days ago) have 5% or greater response rate using IPv6. Google and Akamai have their own content networks, and in at least some countries only externalize AAAA records or respond to IPv6 requests. APNI isn't that way; they don't operate a content network, but rather accept traffic from across the backbone. Consider that a content network essentially reports traffic from a customer network to their first hop ISP, while when APNIC reports an IPv6 access, the father form APNIC to the collector in question has to include every network and every router in the path. Now look at these:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=in">https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=in</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=k&countries=in">https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=k&countries=in</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1&s=1&p=1&w=30&c=IN">https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1&s=1&p=1&w=30&c=IN</a>
I think the APNIC numbers demonstrate that paths through the backbone generally support IPv6 end to end, and that from a routing perspective there is no reason to favor IPv4.
There are 8 Countries (this evening) that Google reports roughly equal response rates from using IPv4 or IPv6. cf <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=in,my,sa,be,de,fr,gr,vn">https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=in,my,sa,be,de,fr,gr,vn</a>. This doesn't prove that IPv6 has taken over the world, but it does prove that those who would discount available statistics sources are a little too shrill in doing so.
Where IPv6 has a problem today is with enterprise. IMHO, this is basically because enterprise is looking at the bottom line. If ISPs were to do what Mythic Beasts says they do, which is charge their users for address space, IPv6 is virtually free while IPv4 costs something. I suspect that enterprise would change its tune dramatically.
------------------------------</pre>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virus-free. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>