Hi, From the collection of statistics you all provided, I can come to a conclusion that around an average of 40% of the world traffic became IPv6, which is still something we cannot depend on as if you compare the time since IPv6 was firstly deployed till now, I can expect that after +10 years we can come to 70 or 75% world-wide, during this time we will have blocks of IPv6 only and blocks of IPv4, which means the clear division.
That’s why looking into the transitions solutions became a mandatory or a peaceful solution such as IPv10 that will allow both version to coexist and communicate until the full migration. Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 1:15 PM To: Fred Baker <[email protected]>; Khaled Omar <[email protected]> Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>; IPv6 Operations <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) Hi all, Fred has formalized below something like 25% of the good White Paper! There is one recent WP on IPv6 status: https://www.etsi.org/images/files/ETSIWhitePapers/etsi_WP35_IPv6_Best_Practices_Benefits_Transition_Challenges_and_the_Way_Forward.pdf Where some additional facts could be found. Eduard > -----Original Message----- > From: v6ops [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker > Sent: 25 сентября 2020 г. 0:45 > To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> > Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>; IPv6 > Operations <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has > changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session > Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) > > On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:57 AM, Khaled Omar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Maybe if you can provide me with all the statistics I need that > > shows the > deployment so I can believe. > > > > Khaled Omar > > Sure. I'm using a site that Eric Vyncke has put together and can discuss with > you. > He uses Google (Erik Kline), Akamai (Jared Mauch), and APNIC (George > Michelson/Geoff Huston) numbers; there are other services that publish > statistics, he just hasn't included them. As of this instant, Google > reports that requests that come to it from 73 countries exceed at > least 5% of its workload from that country, and traffic from 37 > countries exceed 35% of its workload in that country. Its Eric's site, > but the data is from Google, and the site can get you to Akamai and APNIC > data as well for the price of a mouse-click. > > What I do is download the Google statistics, select the countries that > exceed some cut-off, and then ask Eric's or APNIC's site to display the data. > > 5% cut-off > https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=be,de > ,in > ,my,gr,yt,tw,gf,vn,ch,us,fr,mx,pt,jp,lu,br,th,fi,mq,uy,gb,ec,ee,lk,ca, > hu,ae,gp,re, > nl,tt,ie,au,nz,pe,sa,ga,bo,ro,at,gt,no,ph,cz,sg,il,mo,pl,ar,sx,tg,si,n > p,mm,om,bt,k r,ke,fo,co,md,zw,cg,pr,is,lv,am,se,ru,li,jo,sk > > 35% cut-off > https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=be,de > ,in ,my,gr,yt,tw,gf,vn,ch,us,fr,mx,pt,jp,lu,br > > APNIC's display of its data on India is interesting > https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1&s=1&p=1&w=30&c=IN > > If you scroll down, you will get a break-out by AS. APNIC reports that > customers from 12 ASs use IPv6 when accessing APNIC with 50%+ > probability ("ipv6- capable" and carrying that amount of data), and > given a choice of IPv6 or IPv4, most of them are "ipv6-preferred" (eg, > use IPv6 when given a choice). But about > 50 ASs actually have users *using* IPv6 for some subset of their > workload. In a Financial Times blog a week or two ago, the chair of > India's IPv6 deployment task force argued that it should have an > IPv6-only DNS Root Server on the basis of its IPv6 deployment and > usage. I disagree with him (remarks available on request; they only > have 38 IPv6-capable root servers in country), but the basis for the argument > was interesting. > > I think the APNIC data is interesting because it crosses the backbone. > Google and Akamai run CDNs, which means that traffic can be between a > residential subscriber and its CDN server without materially touching > the ISP. APNIC runs no CDN, which means that traffic has to *also* > traverse the ISP and the backbone to APNIC - there is and end-to-end path > across the backbone. Think about this: > when a user accesses a service using IPv6 (or IPv4 for that matter), > the packet has to go from his computer, IOT device, or telephone to > the site in question and the response has to come back; there has to > be a complete end-to-end path in each direction. Miss one IPv6 > connection in one direction, and it may as well be IPv4-only, because that's > the only thing the end system will use. > > From 73 countries, there is an end-to-end path of sufficient strength > that a significant proportion of data *can* traverse it using IPv6, > and the end system - which chooses whether to use IPv4 or IPv6 - will > *choose* IPv6. > > My search engine tells me "There are 195 countries in the world today. > This total comprises 193 countries that are member states of the > United Nations and 2 countries that are non-member observer states: > the Holy See and the State of Palestine." 37% of them, 73, have significant > IPv6 usage. > > Define "widely deployed"? I'll add "and used?" That's pretty wide, in my book. > > What prevents this from being IPv6-only? Computers and network > equipment used by residential and enterprise subscribers have > supported both IPv4 and IPv6 for years. The most commonly used applications > are quite happy with either. > The issue I see is primarily enterprise lack of IPv6 adoption in its > customer-facing services. Even an "IPv6-preferred" site will use IPv4 > when talking with something that will only use IPv4. > > There is nothing proprietary here. Forward if you like. > > > From: Fred Baker <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 4:49 AM > > To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> > > Cc: Erik Kline <[email protected]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) > > <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]>; > > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: > > IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request > > for IETF 109 - IPv10) > > > > Boy. If “millions and billions” isn’t wide deployment, maybe I need > > to go back > to grammar school. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2020, at 4:18 PM, Khaled Omar > > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > But none of these transitioning solutions are widely deployed, maybe > > it is IPv10 time ;-) > > > > Khaled Omar > > > > From: Erik Kline <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 1:05 AM > > To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> > > Cc: Fred Baker <[email protected]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) > > <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]>; > > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: > > IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request > > for IETF 109 - IPv10) > > > > As noted before: RFCs 6052, 6146, 6147, 6877, 7915, and others > > comprise the > solution deployed to literally hundreds of millions if not billions of > mobile devices and numerous access networks worldwide. > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:24 AM Khaled Omar > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Who are these “many people”, and what problem do they see being > solved? > > > > Network engineers everywhere, they are waiting for the announcement > > of an > official robust solution to the depletion of the IPv4 address space > and the division that occurs recently on the Internet. > > > > People read the draft and many wrote about it because the idea is > > simple and > requires no intervention from their side, that’s why I ask the IETF to > take the draft seriously and put personal benefits aside for now, as > LATER everything will back to normal, believe me, all are in need for this. > > > > Khaled Omar > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fred Baker <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 12:24 PM > > To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> > > Cc: Roland Bless <[email protected]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) > > <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]>; > > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: > > IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request > > for IETF 109 - IPv10) > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > On Sep 17, 2020, at 2:08 PM, Khaled Omar > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Regarding the confusion, the community is curious about the idea, > > > many > people support it as it solves the problem that they think they are not part > of it. > > > > This statement has me a little confused. I see a lot of commentary, > > but I don’t see people commenting along those lines. I frankly see > > commentary similar to what I sent you declining a v6ops slot, > > > > Who are these “many people”, and what problem do they see being solved? > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
