Re: IPv6 traffic stats - limitations of 6to4
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Rémi Després wrote: If an implementation implements RFC3484 and the user is not using custom address selection policy, all compliant RFC3484 implementations should prefer v4 when connecting to native from 6to4 (rule 5 of destination address selection AFAIR). Actually, my above statement is incomplete. Thanks for your eagle eyes :-) In case the user has a RFC1918 IPv4 address and the destination is global v4 address, you'd use 6to4. In case IPv4 address is global and destination is global, or both are RFC1918, you would use IPv4. As such: Can we derive from this that Google's IPv6 address is necessarily 6to4 (most of its US customers using it are 6to4), and that Google has therefore a guaranteed path toward other 6to4 hosts? I believe Google is using native addresses. The 6to4 hits are probably caused by the users with private v4 addresses or users whose implementation does not support rfc3484. Besides, isn't this a strong reason in favor of native IPv6 (albeit like Free did it with 6rd on its IPv4 infrastructure) vs 6to4? Native is in many cases better than 6to4 or Teredo (but in some cases 6to4 - 6to4 is better than native). But this is something I specifically didn't comment on in my mail. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: In my opinion, this is a bug. This is the default policy table from a FreeBSD system, which is the RFC 3484 table IIRC: You should probably bring this up on 6MAN WG list then. ip6addrctl Prefix Prec Label Use : : 1/128 50 00 : :/0 40 1 646064 2002::/16 30 20 : :/96 20 30 : : :0.0.0.0/96 10 40 The last line catches IPv4. It's two steps below the 6to4 prefix. However, the fact that the label for the 6to4 prefix doesn't match the ::/0 label means that IPv4 will be used. This happens on FreeBSD and XP, and I assume also on Vista. But not on MacOS, because it doesn't implement the policy table. I don't know about Linux. (If you want to test, try to connect to 6to4test.runningipv6.net and see what happens. Both addresses are unreachable, though.) I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me or something else; I don't see where you're saying the bug is. But if we start talking about issues in RFC3484, it should happen on 6MAN list. Your test is inconclusive due to the fact that the A record is a private address. Depending on whether the connecting host has a global or private address, the results are different (see my mail to Remi for more). -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IPv6 traffic stats (was: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl(DNS Blacklists and Whitelists))
Who cares about the use measurement? I care about the proportion of the Internet where I can obtain acceptable service with full functionality via an IPv6-only endpoint connection. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of David Kessens Sent: Wed 11/12/2008 4:28 PM To: Joe St Sauver Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IPv6 traffic stats (was: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl(DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)) Joe, On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:12:53PM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote: David mentioned: On the other hand, just to put this in context and to pick on an application I'm somewhat familiar with, a single full-ish Usenet news feed is now in excess of 3TByte/day (see the daily volume stats quoted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet ). Just two or three full-ish Usenet News feeds over IPv6, if done across AMS-IX, would account for most of that 800Mbps traffic load (assuming that Usenet is what was making up most of that traffic, an assertion that I'm explictly NOT making). My point? It is possible that the IP transport choices of just a few cooperating server administrators might (at least hypothetically) account for virtually all the observed growth in AMS-IX IPv6 traffic. Very good analysis: rumor has it that a large part of the AMS-IX traffic is indeed usenet traffic. However, that doesn't mean that it is not real IPv6 traffic: eg. we don't decide not to count IPv4 Usenet traffic either. On the other hand, this graph only shows native traffic so there is most likely more than what is visible in the graph. However, there are quite a few other observations by others (also mentioned on this list) that put the total amount of IPv6 traffic to various other parts of the Internet at a bit more but in the same order of magnitude so it doesn't seem that the AMS-IX data is out of line (various presentations on this topic from the last RIPE meeting are available on rosie.ripe.net, look for ipv6 working group or plenary). So to bring this post to a close, I continue to believe that IPv6 traffic, at least IPv6 email traffic, remains very, very low, to the point where, as I've previous mentioned, it just hasn't justified DNS block list operator attention in any material way (love to hear about any counter examples, BTW). This of course depends a bit on what you define as very, very low. However, I can certainly see that it is not enough to get the attention of a DNS block list operator. I do do know however, that I received my first spam mail over IPv6 several years ago. The reason for my mail was not to disproof your point but to put the arbornetworks numbers in a bit more perspective. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats - limitations of 6to4
Pekka Savola (1-12/1-31/200x) 11/12/08 9:09 PM: If an implementation implements RFC3484 and the user is not using custom address selection policy, all compliant RFC3484 implementations should prefer v4 when connecting to native from 6to4 (rule 5 of destination address selection AFAIR). Can we derive from this that Google's IPv6 address is necessarily 6to4 (most of its US customers using it are 6to4), and that Google has therefore a guaranteed path toward other 6to4 hosts? Besides, isn't this a strong reason in favor of native IPv6 (albeit like Free did it with 6rd on its IPv4 infrastructure) vs 6to4? RD FWIW, in Linux this was changed as the default maybe about 2-3 years ago. I suppose may other operating systems, especially recent ones, also operate in this manner. For Linux, some info is here: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/linux-rfc3484.html This has been discussed on v6ops and ipv6 lists but unfortunately I can't find the threads despite search attempts. Maybe someone else with better memory could provide better references. This is why observing ipv6 traffic on a dual-stack hostname will mostly just in observing those that use native v6 (with Mikael, this was 0.5% of users). Except if the dual stack server, like that of Google, uses different URLs for IPv6and IPv4, right? If you're interested in wider picture of IPv6 penetration, you'll put the content on v6-only hostname (with Mikael, this was reachable by 6% of users). If you want to also cover for Vista users with Teredo, you'd put the content on a site and refer to it using a numeric address instead of a hostname (this would result in even a higher percentage). So, if you're interested in any kind of IPv6 connectivity at all (even 6to4, teredo, ...), at least in some user communities (p2p users), I'm pretty sure IPv6 penetration is already over 10%. At least 6% is already proven by measurements :-) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats
Pekka Savola wrote: On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote: The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia, Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6. Presentation available from http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html. Depends on what you're looking for, but if you are interested in the amount of users that have any kind of IPv6 connectivity, this undercounts severely because address selection rules on recent OSs typically select IPv4 if their connectivity is 6to4 or Teredo. Pekka, can you identify the OSes that prefer IPv4 when on 6to4, and pointers to docs? Steinar (the guy who did the Google experiment) has tried to dig through the documentation on both Vista and Linux, and has drawn a blank (Vista with Teredo doesn't even look up the record if it has IPv4 connectivity, according to the documentation, so it seems that it will not use IPv6 to IPv6-only hosts; it will never find the address.) Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IPv6 traffic stats
It looks to me as if these are developer and interoperability issues that are not going to be addressed of their own accord through regular IETF meetings. I think that the only way we could expect progress here would be to have a series of interop events that involve representatives from all the interested parties - ISPs, O/S, network infrastructure providers, core DNS. And they are going to find a large number of such missing pieces that need to be fed into the standards process. In this type of situation I think that we have got to expect the standards process to be descriptive rather than normative. Rather than having a group of folk get together to propose what should work we have to have the interop folk tell us what did work. Some parts of this can take part in the regular IETF process but it really is not the type of project that I think is going to be effectively completed unless there is some fairly radical change in the approach. Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 has to be effortless for the end user. We can adopt a HDTV type approach where users are expected to deploy some sort of $50 'converter' box. What we cannot do is to propose an architecture that requires end-users to think about the change. My home network is IPv4. I have many devices that are not IPv6 aware and have zero intention of changing them. The network is behind a NAT because I don't see a business case to pay $10 per network device per month for unique IP addresses. That would be $120 a month for me - if Comcast actually supported it as an option which they do not, they allow up to 4 IPv4 addresses per residential connection. The core problem here is that the current Internet 'architecture' requires applications to know rather too much about the internal workings of the network that they are connected to. Everyone now accepts that IPv4 address space is going to be quickly exhausted. What fewer people currently understand is that 16 bit port numbers are no longer a scalable means of protocol description. And 16 bit DNS RRs are no better in that respect either. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Harald Alvestrand Sent: Wed 11/12/2008 5:06 AM To: Pekka Savola Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IPv6 traffic stats Pekka Savola wrote: On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote: The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia, Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6. Presentation available from http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html. Depends on what you're looking for, but if you are interested in the amount of users that have any kind of IPv6 connectivity, this undercounts severely because address selection rules on recent OSs typically select IPv4 if their connectivity is 6to4 or Teredo. Pekka, can you identify the OSes that prefer IPv4 when on 6to4, and pointers to docs? Steinar (the guy who did the Google experiment) has tried to dig through the documentation on both Vista and Linux, and has drawn a blank (Vista with Teredo doesn't even look up the record if it has IPv4 connectivity, according to the documentation, so it seems that it will not use IPv6 to IPv6-only hosts; it will never find the address.) Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats
The AS count might also be of interest - 15% of the non-stub IPv4 addresses (AS's that offer transit to other ASes) also originate IPv6 prefixes. How did this 15% change over the past 4 years and/or past 18 months? What percentage would that be of the total AS count? Thanks, Peter --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IPv6 traffic stats To: Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 2:08 PM I've been looking at this as well and reported on the relative amount of IPv6 traffic over the past 4 years at the most recent NANOG (http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2008-10-13-ipv6-deployment.pdf) in recent times I am also seeing 0.5% of hosts preferring to use IPv6 to access a dual-stacked site - the good news it that this number has risen sharply in the past 18 months. The not-so-good news it thats its still a bloody small number! The AS count might also be of interest - 15% of the non-stub IPv4 addresses (AS's that offer transit to other ASes) also originate IPv6 prefixes. Geoff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats
I've been looking at this as well and reported on the relative amount of IPv6 traffic over the past 4 years at the most recent NANOG (http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2008-10-13-ipv6-deployment.pdf ) in recent times I am also seeing 0.5% of hosts preferring to use IPv6 to access a dual-stacked site - the good news it that this number has risen sharply in the past 18 months. The not-so-good news it thats its still a bloody small number! The AS count might also be of interest - 15% of the non-stub IPv4 addresses (AS's that offer transit to other ASes) also originate IPv6 prefixes. Geoff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote: On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote: The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia, Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6. Presentation available from http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html. Depends on what you're looking for, but if you are interested in the amount of users that have any kind of IPv6 connectivity, this undercounts severely because address selection rules on recent OSs typically select IPv4 if their connectivity is 6to4 or Teredo. can you identify the OSes that prefer IPv4 when on 6to4, and pointers to docs? If an implementation implements RFC3484 and the user is not using custom address selection policy, all compliant RFC3484 implementations should prefer v4 when connecting to native from 6to4 (rule 5 of destination address selection AFAIR). FWIW, in Linux this was changed as the default maybe about 2-3 years ago. I suppose may other operating systems, especially recent ones, also operate in this manner. For Linux, some info is here: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/linux-rfc3484.html This has been discussed on v6ops and ipv6 lists but unfortunately I can't find the threads despite search attempts. Maybe someone else with better memory could provide better references. This is why observing ipv6 traffic on a dual-stack hostname will mostly just in observing those that use native v6 (with Mikael, this was 0.5% of users). If you're interested in wider picture of IPv6 penetration, you'll put the content on v6-only hostname (with Mikael, this was reachable by 6% of users). If you want to also cover for Vista users with Teredo, you'd put the content on a site and refer to it using a numeric address instead of a hostname (this would result in even a higher percentage). So, if you're interested in any kind of IPv6 connectivity at all (even 6to4, teredo, ...), at least in some user communities (p2p users), I'm pretty sure IPv6 penetration is already over 10%. At least 6% is already proven by measurements :-) -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats (was: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists))
On Nov 11, 2008, at 11:57 AM, David Kessens wrote: Joe, On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:11AM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote: I'm not aware of DNS block lists which cover IPv6 address spaces at this time, probably in part because IPv6 traffic remains de minimis (see http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/8/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/ showing IPv6 traffic as constituting only 0.002% of all Internet traffic). For the record: It seems that arbornetworks estimates are extremely low to the point where one has to ask whether there were other issues that caused such a low estimate. No, the methodology is outlined in the referenced report. Given what we were measures and what data was supplied, those were the results. There is no question that IPv6 traffic is quite low in the Internet. However, many other reports that I have seen recently measure multiple orders of magnitude more IPv6 traffic (for an easily accesible example see: http://www.ams-ix.net/technical/stats/sflow/) Indeed, and multiple orders (less than two) of magnitude is still, from this, only .1% on average. I believe the point remains very much the same. -danny ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats
On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Sorry, I misremembered. The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia, Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6. Presentation available from http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html . Indeed, and according to the same stats, • 0.238% of users have useful IPv6 connectivity (and prefer IPv6) • 0.09% of users have broken IPv6 connectivity Nearly 38% of that .238% is broken... -danny ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats
On 12 nov 2008, at 21:09, Pekka Savola wrote: If an implementation implements RFC3484 and the user is not using custom address selection policy, all compliant RFC3484 implementations should prefer v4 when connecting to native from 6to4 (rule 5 of destination address selection AFAIR). In my opinion, this is a bug. This is the default policy table from a FreeBSD system, which is the RFC 3484 table IIRC: ip6addrctl Prefix Prec Label Use ::1/128 50 00 ::/0 40 1 646064 2002::/16 30 20 ::/96 20 30 :::0.0.0.0/96 10 40 The last line catches IPv4. It's two steps below the 6to4 prefix. However, the fact that the label for the 6to4 prefix doesn't match the ::/0 label means that IPv4 will be used. This happens on FreeBSD and XP, and I assume also on Vista. But not on MacOS, because it doesn't implement the policy table. I don't know about Linux. (If you want to test, try to connect to 6to4test.runningipv6.net and see what happens. Both addresses are unreachable, though.) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats
On 12 nov 2008, at 21:17, Danny McPherson wrote: Indeed, and according to the same stats, • 0.238% of users have useful IPv6 connectivity (and prefer IPv6) • 0.09% of users have broken IPv6 connectivity Nearly 38% of that .238% is broken... No, 0.238% is the working IPv6 users, so the total is 0.328% of which 27% is broken. I would be interested to see the OS breakdown for that 0.09%. I'm betting it's mostly Vista 6to4 users who have a public IPv4 address but are behind a firewall that blocks protocol 41. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats (was: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists))
Danny, On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 01:15:07PM -0700, Danny McPherson wrote: On Nov 11, 2008, at 11:57 AM, David Kessens wrote: It seems that arbornetworks estimates are extremely low to the point where one has to ask whether there were other issues that caused such a low estimate. No, the methodology is outlined in the referenced report. Given what we were measures and what data was supplied, those were the results. The report as presented at the RIPE meeting indeed mentions the possibility of undercounting. However, it appears that there is an undercount of several orders of magnitude. At that point you really cannot claim that the report provides a perspective on Internet IPv6 traffic as it does. It is quite reasonable to conclude that something went wrong with the methodology, measurements or analysis. There is no question that IPv6 traffic is quite low in the Internet. However, many other reports that I have seen recently measure multiple orders of magnitude more IPv6 traffic (for an easily accesible example see: http://www.ams-ix.net/technical/stats/sflow/) Indeed, and multiple orders (less than two) of magnitude is still, from this, only .1% on average. I believe the point remains very much the same. The difference between something that is barely measurable and something small but measurable like 0.1% is huge. Basically, 0.1% on the scale of the Internet means that a very large group of people is using IPv6 today. There is no question that that group pales to the total number of Internet users but it sure is more than a few people in IETF experimenting with IPv6. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IPv6 traffic stats
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum On 12 nov 2008, at 21:17, Danny McPherson wrote: Indeed, and according to the same stats, . 0.238% of users have useful IPv6 connectivity (and prefer IPv6) . 0.09% of users have broken IPv6 connectivity Nearly 38% of that .238% is broken... No, 0.238% is the working IPv6 users, so the total is 0.328% of which 27% is broken. I would be interested to see the OS breakdown for that 0.09%. I'm betting it's mostly Vista 6to4 users who have a public IPv4 address but are behind a firewall that blocks protocol 41. Or that, sadly, have an apparently-public IP that gets NATed to another public IP. /TJ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats (was: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists))
On Nov 12, The report as presented at the RIPE meeting indeed mentions the possibility of undercounting. However, it appears that there is an undercount of several orders of magnitude. At that point you really cannot claim that the report provides a perspective on Internet IPv6 traffic as it does. It is quite reasonable to conclude that something went wrong with the methodology, measurements or analysis. Nothing is wrong in the methodology and the places where undercounting likely occurred (namely: flow types supported by exporting routers, Teredo data channels, etc..) have been identified. Caveat-aware, I believe the report to be both very quantitive and qualitative. Furthermore, what we measured is what the ISPs involve have visibility to, which is a critical consideration - if you can't see it, and can't measure it, then you certainly can't qualify it. If you have any more *quantitative* and qualitative studies that you can point to I and many others would be quite interested. The difference between something that is barely measurable and something small but measurable like 0.1% is huge. Basically, 0.1% on the scale of the Internet means that a very large group of people is using IPv6 today. There is no question that that group pales to the total number of Internet users but it sure is more than a few people in IETF experimenting with IPv6. That's great news, and I look forwarding to seeing more data from this large group of people... To be clear, our attempt with this study was to measure observable IPv6 traffic in production networks across a large number of production ISP networks. It was not to discredit IPv6 in any way, quite the contrary. I look forward to any credible data that you can provide to support wider adoption, or being made aware of any unacknowledged issues with our methodology. -danny ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats (was: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists))
Danny, On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 06:11:11PM -0700, Danny McPherson wrote: I look forward to any credible data that you can provide to support wider adoption, or being made aware of any unacknowledged issues with our methodology. As I mentioned in another mail to the ietf list today: various presentations on this topic from the last RIPE meeting are available on rosie.ripe.net, look for ipv6 working group or plenary David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats (was: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl(DNS Blacklists and Whitelists))
Danny McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be clear, our attempt with this study was to measure observable IPv6 traffic in production networks across a large number of production ISP networks. It was not to discredit IPv6 in any way, quite the contrary. That's great and it will be even better when this study is repeated in a few months using the same data set and methodology. This way, you can start tracking growth. Comparing this set of results with other sets obtained using different methodologies data sets would be like comparing apples and oranges. Warm regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D Global Information Highway Ltd http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IPv6 traffic stats (was: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists))
Joe, On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:11AM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote: I'm not aware of DNS block lists which cover IPv6 address spaces at this time, probably in part because IPv6 traffic remains de minimis (see http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/8/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/ showing IPv6 traffic as constituting only 0.002% of all Internet traffic). For the record: It seems that arbornetworks estimates are extremely low to the point where one has to ask whether there were other issues that caused such a low estimate. There is no question that IPv6 traffic is quite low in the Internet. However, many other reports that I have seen recently measure multiple orders of magnitude more IPv6 traffic (for an easily accesible example see: http://www.ams-ix.net/technical/stats/sflow/) David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats
David Kessens wrote: Joe, On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:11AM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote: I'm not aware of DNS block lists which cover IPv6 address spaces at this time, probably in part because IPv6 traffic remains de minimis (see http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/8/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/ showing IPv6 traffic as constituting only 0.002% of all Internet traffic). For the record: It seems that arbornetworks estimates are extremely low to the point where one has to ask whether there were other issues that caused such a low estimate. There is no question that IPv6 traffic is quite low in the Internet. However, many other reports that I have seen recently measure multiple orders of magnitude more IPv6 traffic (for an easily accesible example see: http://www.ams-ix.net/technical/stats/sflow/) Google's measurements indicate that when faced with a dual-stack host (one with both an and an A record in the DNS), 0.5% of all hosts will access that host using IPv6. (As presented at the RIPE meeting in Dubai last month.) Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats
Sorry, I misremembered. The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia, Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6. Presentation available from http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html. Harald Turchanyi Geza wrote: Harald, Your Half percent is great! When Tim Berners-Lee presented the www at the JENC conference in Insbruck in 1992, he said that according to the traffic mesurement statistics, the www-related trafic is around half percent. What was the ratio two years later? 40% Half percent is a good start for a real revolution. The question is: where is any similar movement to those pushed the web development in the early nineties? Best, Géza On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Kessens wrote: Joe, On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:11AM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote: I'm not aware of DNS block lists which cover IPv6 address spaces at this time, probably in part because IPv6 traffic remains de minimis (see http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/8/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/ showing IPv6 traffic as constituting only 0.002% of all Internet traffic). For the record: It seems that arbornetworks estimates are extremely low to the point where one has to ask whether there were other issues that caused such a low estimate. There is no question that IPv6 traffic is quite low in the Internet. However, many other reports that I have seen recently measure multiple orders of magnitude more IPv6 traffic (for an easily accesible example see: http://www.ams-ix.net/technical/stats/sflow/) Google's measurements indicate that when faced with a dual-stack host (one with both an and an A record in the DNS), 0.5% of all hosts will access that host using IPv6. (As presented at the RIPE meeting in Dubai last month.) Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats
Am 11.11.2008 um 22:34 schrieb Harald Alvestrand: 8% - only Russia, Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6. Presentation available from http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html . wow , i am impressed 0.76% , so russia has more overall ipv6 traffic then the entire .u.s.a. Guess this realy need to be changed !!! Germany is not even on the list :( regards marc -- Imagination is more important than Knowledge. web : http://www.let.de -- YES WE CAN --- http://isobamapresident.com PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IPv6 traffic stats (was: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists))
David mentioned: #For the record: # #It seems that arbornetworks estimates are extremely low to the point #where one has to ask whether there were other issues that caused such #a low estimate. # #There is no question that IPv6 traffic is quite low in the Internet. #However, many other reports that I have seen recently measure multiple #orders of magnitude more IPv6 traffic (for an easily accesible example #see: http://www.ams-ix.net/technical/stats/sflow/) The Ether Type graph on the AMS-IX page indicates that IPv6 is on average 1/10th of 1% all the traffic they measure, and looking at the associated RRDtool graphs, that works out to be ~800Mbits/second. A sustained ~800 Mbits/second is certainly nothing to sneeze at, and everyone who has worked hard to encourage IPv6 deployment deserves many kudos. Progress is happening! On the other hand, just to put this in context and to pick on an application I'm somewhat familiar with, a single full-ish Usenet news feed is now in excess of 3TByte/day (see the daily volume stats quoted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet ). Just two or three full-ish Usenet News feeds over IPv6, if done across AMS-IX, would account for most of that 800Mbps traffic load (assuming that Usenet is what was making up most of that traffic, an assertion that I'm explictly NOT making). My point? It is possible that the IP transport choices of just a few cooperating server administrators might (at least hypothetically) account for virtually all the observed growth in AMS-IX IPv6 traffic. As to why the AMS-IX number might differ from Arbor's statistic, we know that traffic at exchange points may have a dramatically different composition than traffic measured elsewhere, due in part to the economics of that environment. E.g., continuing to pick on poor old Usenet, people may be willing to exchange Usenet feeds across a settlement-free peering point while they might NOT be willing to exchange Usenet feeds that required (comparatively expensive) transit bandwidth. Those sort of economic choices mean that it is risky to extrapolate Internet-wide traffic statistics from the somewhat atypical settlement-free peering environment. But what sort of growth pattern do we actually see at http://www.ams-ix.net/technical/stats/sflow/ ? That graph *isn't* growing in the characteristic stair step pattern one might expect if you were to suddenly flopping full news feeds over onto IPv6. The growth we see there is much more consistent with what you might find from growth in end user traffic (which could be dominated by web, or P2P, or flash videos or scientists ftp'ing large data sets, or yes, even email, who knows, since there's no way to definitively know w/o doing deep packet inspection, which I doubt would be possible in this case). So to bring this post to a close, I continue to believe that IPv6 traffic, at least IPv6 email traffic, remains very, very low, to the point where, as I've previous mentioned, it just hasn't justified DNS block list operator attention in any material way (love to hear about any counter examples, BTW). Regards, Joe St Sauver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.uoregon.edu/~joe/ Disclaimer: all opinions strictly my own. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote: The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia, Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6. Presentation available from http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html. Depends on what you're looking for, but if you are interested in the amount of users that have any kind of IPv6 connectivity, this undercounts severely because address selection rules on recent OSs typically select IPv4 if their connectivity is 6to4 or Teredo. Mikael Abrahamsson made a test on a p2p-related web-site, and the result was that 6% of users had IPv6 connectivity: http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01582.html As shown in later messages, the figure is actually even higher. Teredo users running Windows Vista are not included in that 6% because Vista doesn't do do lookups at all if all you have is Teredo connectivity. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
