Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
Dear Mark: 1) "... Google's data also shows businesses making at about 4% if you look at the weekly trends that show IPv6 usage spiking on the weekend as business users traffic drops off. ...": Perhaps the better interpretation of this fluctuation is because the residential use (more IPv6) of the Internet peaks up during the weekend, and holidays. In fact, work from home during COVID-19 had a notable effect to this graph. Along this line, you may enjoy reviewing the following article and discussions: https://circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/ Regards, Abe (2022-12-03 18:40 EST) On 2022-11-27 21:31, Mark Andrews wrote: On 24 Nov 2022, at 19:53, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: Dear Joe: 0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up. 1) "...https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years ": Your numbers may be deceiving. A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and ratified on 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few years more than your impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over quarter of a century. Which doesn’t change that fact that the traffic to Google has gone from ~0% to 40% in 12 years. No one claimed that Google has been measuring IPv6 traffic since the very beginning nor does it really matter how long it has been since IPv6 was defined. What we are seeing is strong continuing growth in IPv6 usage where the S curve is a long way from flattening off. B. If you read closely, the statement "The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6." above the graph actually means "equipment readiness". That is, how many Google users have IPv6 capable devices. This is similar as the APNIC statistics whose title makes this clearer. However, having the capability does not mean the owners are actually using it. Also, this is not general data, but within the Google environment. Since Google is one of the stronger promoters of the IPv6, this graph would be at best the cap of such data. If you read it correctly Google is measuring actual traffic. Thats actual data flowing to and from Google's servers be it Gmail, YouTube, search traffic or anything else. It does mean that the owners of the devices are using IPv6. C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic statistics. Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive search. (If you know of any, I would appreciate to receive a lead to such.) The closest that we could find is % of IPv6 in AMS-IX traffic statistics (see URL below). It is currently at about 5-6% and has been tapering off to a growth of less than 0.1% per month recently, after a ramp-up period in the past. (Similar saturation behavior can also be found in the above Google graph.) https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html What makes that “more meaningful” data. I just see different populations of users being measured. Google's data also shows businesses making at about 4% if you look at the weekly trends that show IPv6 usage spiking on the weekend as business users traffic drops off. D. One interesting parameter behind the last one is that as an Inter-eXchange operator, AMS-IX should see very similar percentage traffic mix between IPv6 and IPv4. The low numbers from AMS-IX does not support this viewpoint for matching with your observation. In addition, traffic through IX is the overflow among backbone routers. A couple years ago, there was a report that peering arrangements among backbone routers for IPv6 were much less matured then IPv4, which meant that AMS-IX should be getting more IPv6 traffic than the mix in the Internet core. Interpreted in reverse, % of IPv6 in overall Internet traffic should be less than what AMS-IX handles. E. This is a quite convoluted topic that we only scratched the surface. They should not occupy the attention of colleagues on this list. However, I am willing to provide more information to you off-line, if you care for further discussion. 2) "...https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080108011057.ga21...@cisco.com/ ...": My basic training was in communication equipment hardware design. I knew little about software beyond what I needed for my primary assignment. Your example, however, reminds me of a programing course that I took utilizing APL (A Programming Language) for circuit analysis, optimization and synthesis. It was such a cryptic symbolic language that classmates (mostly majored in EE hardware) were murmuring to express their displeasure. One day we got a homework assignment to do something relatively simple. Everyone struggled to write the code to do the job. Although most of us did get working codes, they were pages long. The shortest one was one full page. Upon reviewed all homework, the professor smiled at us and told us to look for
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote: Big OTTs installed caches all over the world. Big OTTs support IPv6. As large network operational cost to support IPv6 is negligible for OTTs spending a lot more money at the application layer, they may. Hosts prefer IPv6. No. As many retail ISPs can not afford operational cost of IPv6, they are IPv4 only, which makes hosts served by them IPv4 only. Possible exceptions are ISPs offering price (not necessarily value) added network services in noncompetitive environment. But, end users suffer from the added price. Masataka Ohta
RE: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
Big OTTs installed caches all over the world. Big OTTs support IPv6. Hosts prefer IPv6. Hence, traffic becomes IPv6 to big OTTs. It is not visible for IXes. IXes statistics on IPv6 are not representative. Ed/ -Original Message- From: Abraham Y. Chen [mailto:ayc...@avinta.com] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2022 12:35 AM To: Chris Welti Cc: NANOG ; b...@theworld.com; Vasilenko Eduard Subject: Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Hi, Chris: 1) "... public fabric ... private dedicated circuits ... heavily biased ...": You brought up an aspect that I have no knowledge about. However, you did not clarify how IPv6 and IPv4 are treated differently by these considerations which was the key parameter that we are trying to sort out. Thanks. Regards, Abe (2022-11-24 15:40) On 2022-11-24 12:23, Chris Welti wrote: > Hi Abe, > > the problem is that the AMS-IX data only covers the public fabric, but > the peering connections between the big CDNs/clouds and the large ISPs > all happen on private dedicated circuits as it is so much traffic that > it does not make sense to run it over a public IX fabric (in addition > to local caches which dillute the stats even more). Thus that data you > are referring to is heavily biased and should not be used for this > generalized purpose. > > Regards, > Chris > > On 24.11.22 18:01, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: >> Hi, Eduard: >> >> 0) Thanks for sharing your research efforts. >> >> 1) Similar as your own experience, we also recognized the granularity >> issue of the data in this particular type of statistics. Any data >> that is based on a limited number of countries, regions, businesses, >> industry segments, etc. will always be rebutted with a counter >> example of some sort. So, we put more trust into those general >> service cases with continuous reports for consistency, such as >> AMS-IX. If you know any better sources, I would like to look into them. >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Abe (2022-11-24 11:59 EST) >> >> >> On 2022-11-24 04:43, Vasilenko Eduard wrote: >>> Hi Abraham, >>> Let me clarify a little bit on statistics - I did an investigation >>> last year. >>> >>> Google and APNIC report very similar numbers. APNIC permits drilling >>> down deep details. Then it is possible to understand that they see >>> only 100M Chinese. China itself reports 0.5B IPv6 users. APNIC gives >>> Internet population by country - it permits to construct proportion. >>> Hence, it is possible to conclude that we need to add 8% to Google >>> (or APNIC) to get 48% of IPv6 preferred users worldwide. We would >>> likely cross 50% this year. >>> >>> I spent a decent time finding traffic statics. I have found one DPI >>> vendor who has it. Unfortunately, they sell it for money. >>> ARCEP has got it for France and published it in their "Barometer". >>> Almost 70% of application requests are possible to serve from IPv6. >>> Hence, 70%*48%=33.6%. We could claim that 1/3 of the traffic is IPv6 >>> worldwide because France is typical. >>> My boss told me "No-No" for this logic. His example is China where >>> we had reliable data for only 20% of application requests served on >>> IPv6 (China has a very low IPv6 adoption by OTTs). >>> My response was: But India has a much better IPv6 adoption on the >>> web server side. China and a few other countries are not >>> representative. The majority are like France. >>> Unfortunately, we do not have per-country IPv6 adoption on the web >>> server side. >>> OK. We could estimate 60% of the application readiness as a minimum. >>> Then 60%*48%=28.8%. >>> Hence, we could claim that at least 1/4 of the worldwide traffic is >>> IPv6. >>> >>> IX data shows much low IPv6 adoption because the biggest OTTs have >>> many caches installed directly on Carriers' sites. >>> >>> Sorry for not the exact science. But it is all that I have. It is >>> better than nothing. >>> >>> PS: 60% of requests served by web servers does not mean "60% of >>> servers". For servers themselves we have statistics - it is just >>> 20%+. But it is for the biggest web resources. >>> >>> Eduard >>> -Original Message- >>> From: NANOG >>> [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On >>> Behalf Of Abraham Y. Chen >>> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2022 11:53 AM >>> To: Joe Maimon >>> Cc: NANOG;b...@th
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
> On 24 Nov 2022, at 19:53, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > Dear Joe: > > 0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up. > > 1) "... https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like > we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years ": Your numbers may be deceiving. > > A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and ratified > on 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few years more than > your impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over quarter of a century. Which doesn’t change that fact that the traffic to Google has gone from ~0% to 40% in 12 years. No one claimed that Google has been measuring IPv6 traffic since the very beginning nor does it really matter how long it has been since IPv6 was defined. What we are seeing is strong continuing growth in IPv6 usage where the S curve is a long way from flattening off. > B. If you read closely, the statement "The graph shows the percentage of > users that access Google over IPv6." above the graph actually means > "equipment readiness". That is, how many Google users have IPv6 capable > devices. This is similar as the APNIC statistics whose title makes this > clearer. However, having the capability does not mean the owners are actually > using it. Also, this is not general data, but within the Google environment. > Since Google is one of the stronger promoters of the IPv6, this graph would > be at best the cap of such data. If you read it correctly Google is measuring actual traffic. Thats actual data flowing to and from Google's servers be it Gmail, YouTube, search traffic or anything else. It does mean that the owners of the devices are using IPv6. > C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic statistics. > Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive search. (If you know of > any, I would appreciate to receive a lead to such.) The closest that we could > find is % of IPv6 in AMS-IX traffic statistics (see URL below). It is > currently at about 5-6% and has been tapering off to a growth of less than > 0.1% per month recently, after a ramp-up period in the past. (Similar > saturation behavior can also be found in the above Google graph.) > > https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html What makes that “more meaningful” data. I just see different populations of users being measured. Google's data also shows businesses making at about 4% if you look at the weekly trends that show IPv6 usage spiking on the weekend as business users traffic drops off. > D. One interesting parameter behind the last one is that as an > Inter-eXchange operator, AMS-IX should see very similar percentage traffic > mix between IPv6 and IPv4. The low numbers from AMS-IX does not support this > viewpoint for matching with your observation. In addition, traffic through IX > is the overflow among backbone routers. A couple years ago, there was a > report that peering arrangements among backbone routers for IPv6 were much > less matured then IPv4, which meant that AMS-IX should be getting more IPv6 > traffic than the mix in the Internet core. Interpreted in reverse, % of IPv6 > in overall Internet traffic should be less than what AMS-IX handles. > > E. This is a quite convoluted topic that we only scratched the surface. > They should not occupy the attention of colleagues on this list. However, I > am willing to provide more information to you off-line, if you care for > further discussion. > > 2) "... https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080108011057.ga21...@cisco.com/ ...": > My basic training was in communication equipment hardware design. I knew > little about software beyond what I needed for my primary assignment. Your > example, however, reminds me of a programing course that I took utilizing APL > (A Programming Language) for circuit analysis, optimization and synthesis. It > was such a cryptic symbolic language that classmates (mostly majored in EE > hardware) were murmuring to express their displeasure. One day we got a > homework assignment to do something relatively simple. Everyone struggled to > write the code to do the job. Although most of us did get working codes, they > were pages long. The shortest one was one full page. Upon reviewed all > homework, the professor smiled at us and told us to look for the solution > section at the end of the text book. It turned out to be the answer for a > problem in the next chapter to be covered. The code was only three lines > long! Although it did not have the codes for debugging purposes, it covered > all error messages expected. It was such a shocker that everyone quieted down > to focus on the subject for the rest of the semester. During my first > employment, we had the need to optimize circuit designs. Since I was the only > staff who knew about it, I ended up being the coordinator between several > hardware designers and the supporting
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
Hi, Chris: 1) "... public fabric ... private dedicated circuits ... heavily biased ...": You brought up an aspect that I have no knowledge about. However, you did not clarify how IPv6 and IPv4 are treated differently by these considerations which was the key parameter that we are trying to sort out. Thanks. Regards, Abe (2022-11-24 15:40) On 2022-11-24 12:23, Chris Welti wrote: Hi Abe, the problem is that the AMS-IX data only covers the public fabric, but the peering connections between the big CDNs/clouds and the large ISPs all happen on private dedicated circuits as it is so much traffic that it does not make sense to run it over a public IX fabric (in addition to local caches which dillute the stats even more). Thus that data you are referring to is heavily biased and should not be used for this generalized purpose. Regards, Chris On 24.11.22 18:01, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: Hi, Eduard: 0) Thanks for sharing your research efforts. 1) Similar as your own experience, we also recognized the granularity issue of the data in this particular type of statistics. Any data that is based on a limited number of countries, regions, businesses, industry segments, etc. will always be rebutted with a counter example of some sort. So, we put more trust into those general service cases with continuous reports for consistency, such as AMS-IX. If you know any better sources, I would like to look into them. Regards, Abe (2022-11-24 11:59 EST) On 2022-11-24 04:43, Vasilenko Eduard wrote: Hi Abraham, Let me clarify a little bit on statistics - I did an investigation last year. Google and APNIC report very similar numbers. APNIC permits drilling down deep details. Then it is possible to understand that they see only 100M Chinese. China itself reports 0.5B IPv6 users. APNIC gives Internet population by country - it permits to construct proportion. Hence, it is possible to conclude that we need to add 8% to Google (or APNIC) to get 48% of IPv6 preferred users worldwide. We would likely cross 50% this year. I spent a decent time finding traffic statics. I have found one DPI vendor who has it. Unfortunately, they sell it for money. ARCEP has got it for France and published it in their "Barometer". Almost 70% of application requests are possible to serve from IPv6. Hence, 70%*48%=33.6%. We could claim that 1/3 of the traffic is IPv6 worldwide because France is typical. My boss told me "No-No" for this logic. His example is China where we had reliable data for only 20% of application requests served on IPv6 (China has a very low IPv6 adoption by OTTs). My response was: But India has a much better IPv6 adoption on the web server side. China and a few other countries are not representative. The majority are like France. Unfortunately, we do not have per-country IPv6 adoption on the web server side. OK. We could estimate 60% of the application readiness as a minimum. Then 60%*48%=28.8%. Hence, we could claim that at least 1/4 of the worldwide traffic is IPv6. IX data shows much low IPv6 adoption because the biggest OTTs have many caches installed directly on Carriers' sites. Sorry for not the exact science. But it is all that I have. It is better than nothing. PS: 60% of requests served by web servers does not mean "60% of servers". For servers themselves we have statistics - it is just 20%+. But it is for the biggest web resources. Eduard -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Abraham Y. Chen Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2022 11:53 AM To: Joe Maimon Cc: NANOG;b...@theworld.com Subject: Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Dear Joe: 0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up. 1) "...https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years ": Your numbers may be deceiving. A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and ratified on 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few years more than your impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over quarter of a century. B. If you read closely, the statement "The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6." above the graph actually means "equipment readiness". That is, how many Google users have IPv6 capable devices. This is similar as the APNIC statistics whose title makes this clearer. However, having the capability does not mean the owners are actually using it. Also, this is not general data, but within the Google environment. Since Google is one of the stronger promoters of the IPv6, this graph would be at best the cap of such data. C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic statistics. Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive search. (If you kn
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
Hi, Douglas: 0) Thanks for the feedback. 1) I do not sort eMail with any tools. Other than important ones that do I save a copy off the system as a document for long term reference, I only flag those of substance for the keeps and allow the rest to "expire" (I do house cleaning every three months or so.). Consequently, I have no idea about the terminologies that you mentioned. 2) My basic understanding is, an eMail in its entirety is the original work of its composer / writer / sender. As such, a receiver is free to do anything with it, but not to impose certain "rules" back onto the writing. Through the years, eMail writing styles have diversified from the business letter protocols that I knew so much that I had to develop my own conventions of writing that enabled me to organize my eMails for retrieval. They seem to be tolerated by most parties that communicated with except NANOG. If you have certain clear rules that can pass my "logistics" considerations, I will definitely learn and follow. Regards, Abe (2022-11-24 16:00 EST) On 2022-11-24 06:51, Douglas Fischer wrote: Hello Abraham! I believe your e-mail client (MUA) is splitting every message on a new thread. I'm not sure if it is happening with everyone, but using Gmail as MUA, it isn't aggregating the mails on the same thread. Cloud you please check the confs of your tool to avoid it? Thanks in advance. Em qui., 24 de nov. de 2022 às 05:56, Abraham Y. Chen escreveu: Dear Joe: 0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up. 1) "... https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years ": Your numbers may be deceiving. A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and ratified on 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few years more than your impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over quarter of a century. B. If you read closely, the statement "The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6." above the graph actually means "equipment readiness". That is, how many Google users have IPv6 capable devices. This is similar as the APNIC statistics whose title makes this clearer. However, having the capability does not mean the owners are actually using it. Also, this is not general data, but within the Google environment. Since Google is one of the stronger promoters of the IPv6, this graph would be at best the cap of such data. C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic statistics. Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive search. (If you know of any, I would appreciate to receive a lead to such.) The closest that we could find is % of IPv6 in AMS-IX traffic statistics (see URL below). It is currently at about 5-6% and has been tapering off to a growth of less than 0.1% per month recently, after a ramp-up period in the past. (Similar saturation behavior can also be found in the above Google graph.) https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html D. One interesting parameter behind the last one is that as an Inter-eXchange operator, AMS-IX should see very similar percentage traffic mix between IPv6 and IPv4. The low numbers from AMS-IX does not support this viewpoint for matching with your observation. In addition, traffic through IX is the overflow among backbone routers. A couple years ago, there was a report that peering arrangements among backbone routers for IPv6 were much less matured then IPv4, which meant that AMS-IX should be getting more IPv6 traffic than the mix in the Internet core. Interpreted in reverse, % of IPv6 in overall Internet traffic should be less than what AMS-IX handles. E. This is a quite convoluted topic that we only scratched the surface. They should not occupy the attention of colleagues on this list. However, I am willing to provide more information to you off-line, if you care for further discussion. 2) "... https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080108011057.ga21...@cisco.com/ ...": My basic training was in communication equipment hardware design. I knew little about software beyond what I needed for my primary assignment. Your example, however, reminds me of a programing course that I took utilizing APL (A Programming Language) for circuit analysis, optimization and synthesis. It was such a cryptic symbolic language that classmates (mostly majored in EE hardware) were murmuring to express their displeasure. One day we got a homework assignment to do something relatively simple. Everyone struggled to write the code to do the job. Although most of us did get working codes, they were pages long. The shortest one
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
Hi Abe, the problem is that the AMS-IX data only covers the public fabric, but the peering connections between the big CDNs/clouds and the large ISPs all happen on private dedicated circuits as it is so much traffic that it does not make sense to run it over a public IX fabric (in addition to local caches which dillute the stats even more). Thus that data you are referring to is heavily biased and should not be used for this generalized purpose. Regards, Chris On 24.11.22 18:01, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: Hi, Eduard: 0) Thanks for sharing your research efforts. 1) Similar as your own experience, we also recognized the granularity issue of the data in this particular type of statistics. Any data that is based on a limited number of countries, regions, businesses, industry segments, etc. will always be rebutted with a counter example of some sort. So, we put more trust into those general service cases with continuous reports for consistency, such as AMS-IX. If you know any better sources, I would like to look into them. Regards, Abe (2022-11-24 11:59 EST) On 2022-11-24 04:43, Vasilenko Eduard wrote: Hi Abraham, Let me clarify a little bit on statistics - I did an investigation last year. Google and APNIC report very similar numbers. APNIC permits drilling down deep details. Then it is possible to understand that they see only 100M Chinese. China itself reports 0.5B IPv6 users. APNIC gives Internet population by country - it permits to construct proportion. Hence, it is possible to conclude that we need to add 8% to Google (or APNIC) to get 48% of IPv6 preferred users worldwide. We would likely cross 50% this year. I spent a decent time finding traffic statics. I have found one DPI vendor who has it. Unfortunately, they sell it for money. ARCEP has got it for France and published it in their "Barometer". Almost 70% of application requests are possible to serve from IPv6. Hence, 70%*48%=33.6%. We could claim that 1/3 of the traffic is IPv6 worldwide because France is typical. My boss told me "No-No" for this logic. His example is China where we had reliable data for only 20% of application requests served on IPv6 (China has a very low IPv6 adoption by OTTs). My response was: But India has a much better IPv6 adoption on the web server side. China and a few other countries are not representative. The majority are like France. Unfortunately, we do not have per-country IPv6 adoption on the web server side. OK. We could estimate 60% of the application readiness as a minimum. Then 60%*48%=28.8%. Hence, we could claim that at least 1/4 of the worldwide traffic is IPv6. IX data shows much low IPv6 adoption because the biggest OTTs have many caches installed directly on Carriers' sites. Sorry for not the exact science. But it is all that I have. It is better than nothing. PS: 60% of requests served by web servers does not mean "60% of servers". For servers themselves we have statistics - it is just 20%+. But it is for the biggest web resources. Eduard -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Abraham Y. Chen Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2022 11:53 AM To: Joe Maimon Cc: NANOG;b...@theworld.com Subject: Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Dear Joe: 0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up. 1) "...https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years ": Your numbers may be deceiving. A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and ratified on 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few years more than your impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over quarter of a century. B. If you read closely, the statement "The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6." above the graph actually means "equipment readiness". That is, how many Google users have IPv6 capable devices. This is similar as the APNIC statistics whose title makes this clearer. However, having the capability does not mean the owners are actually using it. Also, this is not general data, but within the Google environment. Since Google is one of the stronger promoters of the IPv6, this graph would be at best the cap of such data. C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic statistics. Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive search. (If you know of any, I would appreciate to receive a lead to such.) The closest that we could find is % of IPv6 in AMS-IX traffic statistics (see URL below). It is currently at about 5-6% and has been tapering off to a growth of less than 0.1% per month recently, after a ramp-up period in the past. (Similar saturation behavior can also be found in the above Google graph.) https://stats.ams-ix.net/sfl
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
Hi, Eduard: 0) Thanks for sharing your research efforts. 1) Similar as your own experience, we also recognized the granularity issue of the data in this particular type of statistics. Any data that is based on a limited number of countries, regions, businesses, industry segments, etc. will always be rebutted with a counter example of some sort. So, we put more trust into those general service cases with continuous reports for consistency, such as AMS-IX. If you know any better sources, I would like to look into them. Regards, Abe (2022-11-24 11:59 EST) On 2022-11-24 04:43, Vasilenko Eduard wrote: Hi Abraham, Let me clarify a little bit on statistics - I did an investigation last year. Google and APNIC report very similar numbers. APNIC permits drilling down deep details. Then it is possible to understand that they see only 100M Chinese. China itself reports 0.5B IPv6 users. APNIC gives Internet population by country - it permits to construct proportion. Hence, it is possible to conclude that we need to add 8% to Google (or APNIC) to get 48% of IPv6 preferred users worldwide. We would likely cross 50% this year. I spent a decent time finding traffic statics. I have found one DPI vendor who has it. Unfortunately, they sell it for money. ARCEP has got it for France and published it in their "Barometer". Almost 70% of application requests are possible to serve from IPv6. Hence, 70%*48%=33.6%. We could claim that 1/3 of the traffic is IPv6 worldwide because France is typical. My boss told me "No-No" for this logic. His example is China where we had reliable data for only 20% of application requests served on IPv6 (China has a very low IPv6 adoption by OTTs). My response was: But India has a much better IPv6 adoption on the web server side. China and a few other countries are not representative. The majority are like France. Unfortunately, we do not have per-country IPv6 adoption on the web server side. OK. We could estimate 60% of the application readiness as a minimum. Then 60%*48%=28.8%. Hence, we could claim that at least 1/4 of the worldwide traffic is IPv6. IX data shows much low IPv6 adoption because the biggest OTTs have many caches installed directly on Carriers' sites. Sorry for not the exact science. But it is all that I have. It is better than nothing. PS: 60% of requests served by web servers does not mean "60% of servers". For servers themselves we have statistics - it is just 20%+. But it is for the biggest web resources. Eduard -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Abraham Y. Chen Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2022 11:53 AM To: Joe Maimon Cc: NANOG;b...@theworld.com Subject: Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Dear Joe: 0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up. 1) "...https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years ": Your numbers may be deceiving. A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and ratified on 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few years more than your impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over quarter of a century. B. If you read closely, the statement "The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6." above the graph actually means "equipment readiness". That is, how many Google users have IPv6 capable devices. This is similar as the APNIC statistics whose title makes this clearer. However, having the capability does not mean the owners are actually using it. Also, this is not general data, but within the Google environment. Since Google is one of the stronger promoters of the IPv6, this graph would be at best the cap of such data. C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic statistics. Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive search. (If you know of any, I would appreciate to receive a lead to such.) The closest that we could find is % of IPv6 in AMS-IX traffic statistics (see URL below). It is currently at about 5-6% and has been tapering off to a growth of less than 0.1% per month recently, after a ramp-up period in the past. (Similar saturation behavior can also be found in the above Google graph.) https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html D. One interesting parameter behind the last one is that as an Inter-eXchange operator, AMS-IX should see very similar percentage traffic mix between IPv6 and IPv4. The low numbers from AMS-IX does not support this viewpoint for matching with your observation. In addition, traffic through IX is the overflow among backbone routers. A couple years ago, there was a report that peering arrangements among backbone routers for IPv6 were much less matured then IPv4, which meant that AMS-IX should be getting more
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
Hello Abraham! I believe your e-mail client (MUA) is splitting every message on a new thread. I'm not sure if it is happening with everyone, but using Gmail as MUA, it isn't aggregating the mails on the same thread. Cloud you please check the confs of your tool to avoid it? Thanks in advance. Em qui., 24 de nov. de 2022 às 05:56, Abraham Y. Chen escreveu: > Dear Joe: > > 0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought > up. > > 1) "... https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks > like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years ": Your numbers may be > deceiving. > >A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and > ratified on 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few years > more than your impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over > quarter of a century. > >B. If you read closely, the statement "The graph shows the > percentage of users that access Google over IPv6." above the graph > actually means "equipment readiness". That is, how many Google users > have IPv6 capable devices. This is similar as the APNIC statistics whose > title makes this clearer. However, having the capability does not mean > the owners are actually using it. Also, this is not general data, but > within the Google environment. Since Google is one of the stronger > promoters of the IPv6, this graph would be at best the cap of such data. > >C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic > statistics. Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive search. > (If you know of any, I would appreciate to receive a lead to such.) The > closest that we could find is % of IPv6 in AMS-IX traffic statistics > (see URL below). It is currently at about 5-6% and has been tapering off > to a growth of less than 0.1% per month recently, after a ramp-up period > in the past. (Similar saturation behavior can also be found in the above > Google graph.) > > https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html > >D. One interesting parameter behind the last one is that as an > Inter-eXchange operator, AMS-IX should see very similar percentage > traffic mix between IPv6 and IPv4. The low numbers from AMS-IX does not > support this viewpoint for matching with your observation. In addition, > traffic through IX is the overflow among backbone routers. A couple > years ago, there was a report that peering arrangements among backbone > routers for IPv6 were much less matured then IPv4, which meant that > AMS-IX should be getting more IPv6 traffic than the mix in the Internet > core. Interpreted in reverse, % of IPv6 in overall Internet traffic > should be less than what AMS-IX handles. > >E. This is a quite convoluted topic that we only scratched the > surface. They should not occupy the attention of colleagues on this > list. However, I am willing to provide more information to you off-line, > if you care for further discussion. > > 2) "... https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080108011057.ga21...@cisco.com/ > ...": My basic training was in communication equipment hardware design. > I knew little about software beyond what I needed for my primary > assignment. Your example, however, reminds me of a programing course > that I took utilizing APL (A Programming Language) for circuit analysis, > optimization and synthesis. It was such a cryptic symbolic language that > classmates (mostly majored in EE hardware) were murmuring to express > their displeasure. One day we got a homework assignment to do something > relatively simple. Everyone struggled to write the code to do the job. > Although most of us did get working codes, they were pages long. The > shortest one was one full page. Upon reviewed all homework, the > professor smiled at us and told us to look for the solution section at > the end of the text book. It turned out to be the answer for a problem > in the next chapter to be covered. The code was only three lines long! > Although it did not have the codes for debugging purposes, it covered > all error messages expected. It was such a shocker that everyone quieted > down to focus on the subject for the rest of the semester. During my > first employment, we had the need to optimize circuit designs. Since I > was the only staff who knew about it, I ended up being the coordinator > between several hardware designers and the supporting programmer. From > that teaching, I am always looking for the most concise solution to an > issue, not being distracted or discouraged by the manifestation on the > surface. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language) > > 3) Fast forward half a century, I am hoping that my "one-line code" > serves the purpose of "there exists" an example in proofing a > mathematical theorem for inspiring software colleagues to review the > network codes in front of them for improvement, instead of presenting > such as a valid hurdle to progress. > > > Regards, > > > Abe (2022-11-24 03:53 EST) > > > > > >
RE: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
Hi Abraham, Let me clarify a little bit on statistics - I did an investigation last year. Google and APNIC report very similar numbers. APNIC permits drilling down deep details. Then it is possible to understand that they see only 100M Chinese. China itself reports 0.5B IPv6 users. APNIC gives Internet population by country - it permits to construct proportion. Hence, it is possible to conclude that we need to add 8% to Google (or APNIC) to get 48% of IPv6 preferred users worldwide. We would likely cross 50% this year. I spent a decent time finding traffic statics. I have found one DPI vendor who has it. Unfortunately, they sell it for money. ARCEP has got it for France and published it in their "Barometer". Almost 70% of application requests are possible to serve from IPv6. Hence, 70%*48%=33.6%. We could claim that 1/3 of the traffic is IPv6 worldwide because France is typical. My boss told me "No-No" for this logic. His example is China where we had reliable data for only 20% of application requests served on IPv6 (China has a very low IPv6 adoption by OTTs). My response was: But India has a much better IPv6 adoption on the web server side. China and a few other countries are not representative. The majority are like France. Unfortunately, we do not have per-country IPv6 adoption on the web server side. OK. We could estimate 60% of the application readiness as a minimum. Then 60%*48%=28.8%. Hence, we could claim that at least 1/4 of the worldwide traffic is IPv6. IX data shows much low IPv6 adoption because the biggest OTTs have many caches installed directly on Carriers' sites. Sorry for not the exact science. But it is all that I have. It is better than nothing. PS: 60% of requests served by web servers does not mean "60% of servers". For servers themselves we have statistics - it is just 20%+. But it is for the biggest web resources. Eduard -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Abraham Y. Chen Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2022 11:53 AM To: Joe Maimon Cc: NANOG ; b...@theworld.com Subject: Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Dear Joe: 0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up. 1) "... https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years ": Your numbers may be deceiving. A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and ratified on 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few years more than your impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over quarter of a century. B. If you read closely, the statement "The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6." above the graph actually means "equipment readiness". That is, how many Google users have IPv6 capable devices. This is similar as the APNIC statistics whose title makes this clearer. However, having the capability does not mean the owners are actually using it. Also, this is not general data, but within the Google environment. Since Google is one of the stronger promoters of the IPv6, this graph would be at best the cap of such data. C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic statistics. Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive search. (If you know of any, I would appreciate to receive a lead to such.) The closest that we could find is % of IPv6 in AMS-IX traffic statistics (see URL below). It is currently at about 5-6% and has been tapering off to a growth of less than 0.1% per month recently, after a ramp-up period in the past. (Similar saturation behavior can also be found in the above Google graph.) https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html D. One interesting parameter behind the last one is that as an Inter-eXchange operator, AMS-IX should see very similar percentage traffic mix between IPv6 and IPv4. The low numbers from AMS-IX does not support this viewpoint for matching with your observation. In addition, traffic through IX is the overflow among backbone routers. A couple years ago, there was a report that peering arrangements among backbone routers for IPv6 were much less matured then IPv4, which meant that AMS-IX should be getting more IPv6 traffic than the mix in the Internet core. Interpreted in reverse, % of IPv6 in overall Internet traffic should be less than what AMS-IX handles. E. This is a quite convoluted topic that we only scratched the surface. They should not occupy the attention of colleagues on this list. However, I am willing to provide more information to you off-line, if you care for further discussion. 2) "... https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080108011057.ga21...@cisco.com/ ...": My basic training was in communication equipment hardware design. I knew little about software beyond what I needed for my primary
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
Dear Joe: 0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up. 1) "... https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years ": Your numbers may be deceiving. A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and ratified on 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few years more than your impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over quarter of a century. B. If you read closely, the statement "The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6." above the graph actually means "equipment readiness". That is, how many Google users have IPv6 capable devices. This is similar as the APNIC statistics whose title makes this clearer. However, having the capability does not mean the owners are actually using it. Also, this is not general data, but within the Google environment. Since Google is one of the stronger promoters of the IPv6, this graph would be at best the cap of such data. C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic statistics. Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive search. (If you know of any, I would appreciate to receive a lead to such.) The closest that we could find is % of IPv6 in AMS-IX traffic statistics (see URL below). It is currently at about 5-6% and has been tapering off to a growth of less than 0.1% per month recently, after a ramp-up period in the past. (Similar saturation behavior can also be found in the above Google graph.) https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html D. One interesting parameter behind the last one is that as an Inter-eXchange operator, AMS-IX should see very similar percentage traffic mix between IPv6 and IPv4. The low numbers from AMS-IX does not support this viewpoint for matching with your observation. In addition, traffic through IX is the overflow among backbone routers. A couple years ago, there was a report that peering arrangements among backbone routers for IPv6 were much less matured then IPv4, which meant that AMS-IX should be getting more IPv6 traffic than the mix in the Internet core. Interpreted in reverse, % of IPv6 in overall Internet traffic should be less than what AMS-IX handles. E. This is a quite convoluted topic that we only scratched the surface. They should not occupy the attention of colleagues on this list. However, I am willing to provide more information to you off-line, if you care for further discussion. 2) "... https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080108011057.ga21...@cisco.com/ ...": My basic training was in communication equipment hardware design. I knew little about software beyond what I needed for my primary assignment. Your example, however, reminds me of a programing course that I took utilizing APL (A Programming Language) for circuit analysis, optimization and synthesis. It was such a cryptic symbolic language that classmates (mostly majored in EE hardware) were murmuring to express their displeasure. One day we got a homework assignment to do something relatively simple. Everyone struggled to write the code to do the job. Although most of us did get working codes, they were pages long. The shortest one was one full page. Upon reviewed all homework, the professor smiled at us and told us to look for the solution section at the end of the text book. It turned out to be the answer for a problem in the next chapter to be covered. The code was only three lines long! Although it did not have the codes for debugging purposes, it covered all error messages expected. It was such a shocker that everyone quieted down to focus on the subject for the rest of the semester. During my first employment, we had the need to optimize circuit designs. Since I was the only staff who knew about it, I ended up being the coordinator between several hardware designers and the supporting programmer. From that teaching, I am always looking for the most concise solution to an issue, not being distracted or discouraged by the manifestation on the surface. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language) 3) Fast forward half a century, I am hoping that my "one-line code" serves the purpose of "there exists" an example in proofing a mathematical theorem for inspiring software colleagues to review the network codes in front of them for improvement, instead of presenting such as a valid hurdle to progress. Regards, Abe (2022-11-24 03:53 EST) On 2022-11-21 19:30, Joe Maimon wrote: David Conrad wrote: Barry, On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote: We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years with very limited success According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years. https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 has it around 30%. Given an Internet population of about 5B, this can (simplistically and
