And furthermore, he is not considering that *most* of the traffic today is from
the caches (hosted by the ISPs) to the subscribers, so this is never passing
via the IX.
For example, a Netflix cache, got a copy (via IPv6) of film "A", but is being
used by 10.000 subscribers in that ISP. The
You are using an IX whose peers are almost all based in Europe, which is
RIPE region. Do you have any similar data involving major exchange points
over here in ARIN?
According to Google inbound traffic reports, IPv6 is much less adopted in
Europe than the USA. If you want to cite IPv6
> Mark Andrews wrote :
> First peak in July 29.41% - Jan 18 30.39%. Still going up.
Great. Another 75 years to wait, at that rate.
Compare (over a year):
IPv6
https://stats.ams-ix.net/cgi-bin/stats/sflow_grapher?type=ipv6;interval=yearly;scale=normal;counter=bps
IPv4
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 3:31 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> > On 21 Jan 2020, at 03:19, Michel Py
> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew Kirch wrote :
> >> I post here very rarely to not at all but your assertion that "IPv6
> >> is leveling off" ranges somewhere between insane and drug-addled.
> >>
> On 21 Jan 2020, at 03:19, Michel Py
> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Kirch wrote :
>> I post here very rarely to not at all but your assertion that "IPv6
>> is leveling off" ranges somewhere between insane and drug-addled.
>> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
>
> Zoom the graph
The graphs that I look at are not at Google, but the MRTG graphs generated
from my own routers. I have been passing between 55 and 60 percent of
total traffic via IPv6. In nighttime use, Netflix is king, and it is IPv6
enabled. In a 24 hour period, more v6 traffic happens during non business
Please knock it off with the unfounded allegations of drug use before we need
to get the AUP committee involved.
And more broadly, I don’t think it’s helpful to argue about the motivations of
IPv6 proponents or whether v6 adoption is continuing or not. The relevant
question at hand is whether
> Andrew Kirch wrote :
> I post here very rarely to not at all but your assertion that "IPv6
> is leveling off" ranges somewhere between insane and drug-addled.
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
Zoom the graph between July 2019 and today and tell us which drug it is you
This is NOT about inflating IPv6 adoption numbers, but trying to get
people to move in the right direction, since without adoption of IPv6, the
number of nodes on the internet will be fixed at a number that is not even
equal to one per living person on planet earth.
I am not a bit worried
Michael,
I post here very rarely to not at all but your assertion that "IPv6 is
leveling off" ranges somewhere between insane and drug-addled.
I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt, and label it merely
[citation needed].
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
With this
How many times do we need to say no no no no ?
I have a stern warning : as it is obvious that IPv6 is leveling off, people who
are supporting the 100% IPv6 dream have to worry about their next employment,
should their current one changes.
Never before in history, a protocol has failed for 20
No no no no.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 18, 2020, at 2:07 AM, John Springer <3jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
?
No, no and again, no.
John Springer
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 09:06 Andrew Dul
mailto:andrew@quark.net>> wrote:
Happy New Year everyone...
We had a robust discussion on this list before
No, no and again, no.
John Springer
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 09:06 Andrew Dul wrote:
> Happy New Year everyone...
>
> We had a robust discussion on this list before the New Year, but it was
> clear that we don't have consensus on the current draft. Thus to help move
> this draft forward... I'm
> On Jan 13, 2020, at 09:06 , Andrew Dul wrote:
>
> Happy New Year everyone...
>
> We had a robust discussion on this list before the New Year, but it was clear
> that we don't have consensus on the current draft. Thus to help move this
> draft forward... I'm proposing a couple of
Is this the correct list to monitor:
https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/
Albert
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, Fernando Frediani wrote:
I believe this is some kind of political correctness way of dealing with this
topic. While many support the adoption of IPv6 and recognize the critical
need
On Behalf Of Fernando
> Frediani
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 1:46 PM
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-19 Require IPv6 before receiving
> Section 8 IPv4 Transfers
>
> I believe this is some kind of political correctness way of dealing with
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:06 PM Andrew Dul wrote:
> Happy New Year everyone...
>
> We had a robust discussion on this list before the New Year, but it was
> clear that we don't have consensus on the current draft. Thus to help move
> this draft forward... I'm proposing a couple of questions
Do you support any IPv6 requirements on an IPv4 transfer?
Yes
Would you support IPv6 requirements for receiving a block via the ARIN
wait-list?
Yes
-Daved Daly
(AS1426)
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 9:57 AM Scott Leibrand
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 9:06 AM Andrew Dul wrote:
>
>> Happy
I oppose the policy requiring IPv6 implementation either as part of an IPv4
transfer or receipt of IPv4 on the waiting list. Others have correctly pointed
out that the policy will not have the desired effect of encouraging IPv6
adoption, but my main objection is that it's an attempt to coerce
On 1/13/20 9:06 AM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> Do you support any IPv6 requirements on an IPv4 transfer?
>
> Would you support IPv6 requirements for receiving a block via the ARIN
> wait-list?
Yes and yes.
We made a plan to adopt IPv6 after I attended the ARIN on the Road in Denver on
June 13, 2017
- Office
770.392.0076 - Fax
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 1:46 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-19 Require IPv6 before
On 1/13/20 9:06 AM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> Do you support any IPv6 requirements on an IPv4 transfer?
>
> Would you support IPv6 requirements for receiving a block via the ARIN
> wait-list?
Yes
Given the hoops one already has to jump through to get IPv4 address
space, a limited IPv6 deployment is
I believe this is some kind of political correctness way of dealing with
this topic. While many support the adoption of IPv6 and recognize the
critical need of it for the Internet ecosystem to continue work smoothly
and to avoid many conflicts that will arise otherwise, they don't seem
to want
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020, at 10:20 AM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
> There is no reason why a minimal deployment of IPv6, the future of the
> Internet should not also be a additional
> condition of receiving more IPv4 addresses via the section 8 process.
The reason (as everyone keeps saying) is
I see the exact opposite point of view.
Based on the original policies, there was no directed transfers. Those
who had surplus number resources were supposed to turn them back for
reissue to others who have shown demonstrated need.
Instead, ARIN and other RIR's have adopted a transfer
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020, at 9:56 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Requiring an IPv6 allocation/assignment, or even requiring someone to route
> an IPv6 block, wouldn't drive adoption enough to be meaningful.
This is unfortunately true, and I agree completely with Scott.
If I could think of a way to
—
Brian Jones
Virginia Tech
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:06 PM Andrew Dul wrote:
> Happy New Year everyone...
>
> We had a robust discussion on this list before the New Year, but it was
> clear that we don't have consensus on the current draft. Thus to help move
> this draft forward... I'm
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 9:06 AM Andrew Dul wrote:
> Happy New Year everyone...
>
> We had a robust discussion on this list before the New Year, but it was
> clear that we don't have consensus on the current draft. Thus to help move
> this draft forward... I'm proposing a couple of questions to
Frankly, I agree with earlier detractors..
While it may be important to ARIN to push for IPv6 adoption, I don't
believe using IPv4 allocation policies as a method to 'force' adoption
is a wise or efficient method for encouraging adoption..
I believe you should simply keep both purposes
Happy New Year everyone...
We had a robust discussion on this list before the New Year, but it was
clear that we don't have consensus on the current draft. Thus to help
move this draft forward... I'm proposing a couple of questions to see
if we can find middle ground here to update the text of
30 matches
Mail list logo
