From an anecdotal 'normal' end user perspective, perhaps, IE social media, streaming, gaming, general internet usage for the most part, etc - pretty high. Especially when you throw modern current-generation gaming consoles and things like that into the mix - makes them sing and work great and reliably compared to other scenarios.
I often see it in the 60-70% range on networks I've helped implement on. Both residential and SMB. Large scale networks I'm privy to I'm sure I'll see IPv6 implemented in 2040...... 😉 At $home, we peak at around 85%, often when I'm not heavily using anything on my v4-only ipsec tunnels, for example. That's a family of 5 (well, 4 now, but the range of 65%-85% averaging hasn't changed with the removal of one person from the network). With the exception of me, they're all average internet users of various types. Mind you, this is of course in the US which does have a reasonably high IPv6 enablement for a lot of services. And none of the sites involved - be it $home or 500-1000 user SMB network - changed or modified their IPv4 configurations in any way, except perhaps to reduce the size of the NAT pool, or centralize the NAT pool instead of having one per office for example. -----Original Message----- From: Forrest Christian (List Account) via NANOG <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2025 4:12 PM To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]> Cc: Forrest Christian (List Account) <[email protected]> Subject: IPv6 native percentage (end user perspective) I see numerous statistics from Google and similar sources that indicate the percentage of end users who are IPv6 native. What I'm missing are statistics going the other way - what percentage of sites (or endpoints that customers regularly connect to) are IPv6-native, from a total traffic perspective? That is, if I switch to IPv6 on my eyeball network, how much of my existing traffic will I have to CGNAT in some way to reach the IPv4-only network? We have sufficient IPv4 address resources to stick with IPv4 for the foreseeable future. However, at some point, the percentage of traffic using IPv6 becomes so high that the reasons not to move become less significant. For example, the CGNAT box becomes significantly smaller, as most of the traffic should flow around it on IPv6. -- - Forrest _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/ZWNAGD3GM6VKKNBE3QE5HHRJ26C4UXJF/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/BAEFJTZLHUJ7W2SOI7PHLHYPSPGE5Y23/
