North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:35:14 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems that the list doesn't like the attachments, anyway, the text show > the results for the awstats. > > > Hi, > > Sorry the late answer, traveling and overbooked ... My reply below, in-line. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > De: Paul G <[email protected]> > > Responder a: <[email protected]> > > Fecha: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:54:25 -0400 > > Para: <[email protected]> > > Asunto: Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 12:30 AM > > Subject: Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google > > > >> The last figure that I remember, very impressive, was in April 2004, when > >> the estimated number of hosts using 6to4 on Windows hosts was calculated > > as > >> 100.000.000 (extrapolated from measurements). This is not including hosts > >> with have native support or use other transition mechanism such as > >> configured tunnels, ISATAP, 6over4, or Teredo (behind NAT). > > > > this figure seems to be completely over the top. i would be interested in > > seeing those 'measurements', an explanation of why they are statistically > > representative and the method of extrapolation. perhaps it was a typo and, > > instead of 'extrapolation', they really meant 'exaggeration'? that would > > make more sense ;] > > The paper is here: > > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1052812.1052821 > > I also know the author, and I'm sure is not exaggerating. > > > > >> We notice in our web servers (which are dual stack), incredible amounts of > >> IPv6 traffic, increasing month by month. > > > > please define incredible using a non-subjective measurement system - > > absolute counts and percentages of total traffic will do. as stated above, i > > would likewise be interested in knowing how representative your traffic is > > of general internet usage. as an example, i would expect web servers for an > > incredibly popular site discussing v6 to have a disproportionate amount of > > v6 traffic. > > Just look at the attached stats from this year in one of our web sites. Just > one, and not the one which has the bigger ratio of IPv6 vs. IPv4 traffic. Is > not an IPv6 site, just one of our customers. Can't say how much > representative is vs. Internet traffic, but for me is enough. > > The file total.tiff includes ALL the traffic to the server (IPv4 and IPv6), > while the other one (ipv6_only) is just IPv6 traffic. If you compare what is > only IPv4 (total-IPv6) vs. IPv6, we have: > > IPv4 IPv6 % > Users 118.41 GB 10.38 GB 8.77 > Robots 253.65 GB 2.64 GB 1.04 > > Conclusion: The users traffic is rising. No robots support IPv6 today > (probably this could change with people like Google and others doing IPv6). > > Different conclusions can be extracted looking at the number of visitors, > visits, pages, hits, etc. > > Is clear, that this depends on the user profile, may be even the region ? In > some regions the awareness has been much stronger (and probably successful) > and more users turn on IPv6 in their clients. > > > > >> Do you want to guess what will happen with Vista, which comes with IPv6 > >> enabled by default ? > > > > i don't like guessing, but if i were pressed, drunk or otherwise > > intoxicated, i'd say default support in client software is not the single > > bottleneck - being able to purchase v6 transit and have your v6 work as well > > as your v4 is another one that you can't really get around. i'm not up to > > date on these things, has someone figured out how we're multihoming with v6 > > yet and, more importantly, got vendors to agree on and implement it? > > > > I disagree here. If the clients have IPv6 support, even if tunneled, which > is enabled most of the time automatically (6to4, Teredo, others), the > traffic is already increasing specially peer to peer. Of course, the quality > is not so good as having native support, but some times it works much better > that having to trouble with NAT boxes and so on. > > > -p > > > > --- > > paul galynin > > > > > > > > ************************************ > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit > Information available at: > http://www.ipv6-es.com > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The > information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of > this information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > >
|