More stats : https://as24904.kwaoo.net/as-stats/top.php
We are one of raf's competitor in France, FTTH based operator
~ 20% of our customers are ipv6-enabled
~ 5% of total traffic is IPv6
On 19/06/2017 13:52, Aaron Gould wrote:
> When you say some percentage is with Google, what do you mean by
On 2017-06-23 09:09, Lee Howard wrote:
But I think you’re asking for a business education series that goes:
1. Enterprise business consideration of IPv6
a. It’s already on your network. All computers, tablets and phones have
at least Link Local, and some set up tunnels. Plus, if your employee
clear why they
avoid IPV4.
From: NANOG on behalf of Lee Howard
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 5:09:23 PM
To: Radu-Adrian Feurdean; Mukom Akong T.
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?
On 6/22/17, 3:00 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Radu-Adrian Feurde
On 6/22/17, 3:00 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Radu-Adrian Feurdean"
wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 22, 2017, at 08:18, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
>>
>> On 18 June 2017 at 17:36, Radu-Adrian Feurdean > adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:>> so for the record, business customers are
>>much more active in
>>> *rejecting* IPv
On 18 June 2017 at 17:36, Radu-Adrian Feurdean <
na...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
> so for the record, business customers are much more active in
> *rejecting* IPv6, either explictely (they say they want it disabled) or
> implicitly (they install their own router, not configured for IPv6). T
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
To make it short : education. And we as as small ISP we have neither the
resources, nor the motivation (because $$$ on the issue is negative) to
do it (the education).
An ISP should be an enabler, and have a service portfolio to cover most
cust
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017, at 08:18, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
>
> On 18 June 2017 at 17:36, Radu-Adrian Feurdean adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:>> so for the record, business customers are much
> more active in
>> *rejecting* IPv6, either explictely (they say they want it
>> disabled) or>> implicitly (th
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017, at 14:17, f...@fhrnet.eu wrote:
> I assume it means 60% of all their IPv6 traffic is reaching Google
> services, ie GMail or YouTube.
Exactly.
Or otherwise said, more than 60% of the IPv6 bytes (NOT flow entries)
accounted via Sflow (residential) or sampled Netflow (whole tra
When you say some percentage is with Google, what do you mean by that ? What
do you mean by "with Google" ?
- Aaron Gould
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017, at 14:51, Bajpai, Vaibhav wrote:
> The v6 numbers from ^ NANOG post are now more than 1 year old. Thought
> to re-bump this thread. Would it be possible to share updated numbers
> of v6 traffic share within your network and % contribution by top apps.
Hello,
A little late
Not to put any sort of damper on wild speculation, but at the Southern
California Linux Expo,
with native IPv4 and IPv6 dual stack support enabled on the wifi for the show,
we saw close to
50% of all traffic on IPv6.
Owen
> On Jan 24, 2016, at 07:23 , Bruce Curtis wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 20, 20
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 6:14 AM, nanog-...@mail.com wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their
> percentage of IPv6 traffic?
>
> Bonus points for sharing top IPv6 sources. Anything else than the usual
> suspects, Google/YouTube, Netflix and
> With this I meant that I can measure something, but only within a subset
> of the entire path a packet might traverse.
considering your original hypothesis was about length of paths, this
seems a kind of dead end. you might get a modest improvement by turning
off hot potato :)
> so not end-to-
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:44:34PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > You can configure pmacct to specify on which properties of the received
> > flow data it should aggregate its output data, one could configure
> > pmacct to store data using the following primitives:
> >
> > ($timeperiod, $entrypo
> You can configure pmacct to specify on which properties of the received
> flow data it should aggregate its output data, one could configure
> pmacct to store data using the following primitives:
>
> ($timeperiod, $entrypoint_router_id, $bgp_nexthop, $packet_count)
>
> Where $timeperiod is
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:00:46PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > We know the GPS coordinates for each BGP next-hop in the network, and
> > traffic is sampled on ingress at the edge of the network and reported
> > to pmacct (*flow), which also receives a RR-style BGP feed for
> > correlation.
> >
>
> We know the GPS coordinates for each BGP next-hop in the network, and
> traffic is sampled on ingress at the edge of the network and reported
> to pmacct (*flow), which also receives a RR-style BGP feed for
> correlation.
>
> We can know where (geographically) a packet enters the network, where
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:48:19AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > jokes aside, Its a hypothesis worth testing. It has qualities which
> > make it plausible.
> >
> > So please, between you, find a way to specify and test it!
>
> although the hypothesis has some intuitive appeal, how to test it is fa
> jokes aside, Its a hypothesis worth testing. It has qualities which
> make it plausible.
>
> So please, between you, find a way to specify and test it!
although the hypothesis has some intuitive appeal, how to test it is far
from obvious. and i note that, as a senior member of the measurement
In our case IPv6 traffic is ~27% of total, with ~58% dual-stack subscribers and
~7% ds-lite subscribers.
--
Tassos
nanog-...@mail.com wrote on 20/1/16 14:14:
> Hello all,
>
> Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their
> percentage of IPv6 traffic?
>
> Bonus points f
>>> We could assert that the TTL is an indication of distance traveled.
>>
>> you might hypothesize it. but the wide variance in per-hop rtt would
>> seem to belie that.
>>
>>> Maybe one should record the TTL and Address Family of all packets
>>> received from the internet ('inbound') at the nex
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 08:23:09AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > We could assert that the TTL is an indication of distance traveled.
>
> you might hypothesize it. but the wide variance in per-hop rtt would
> seem to belie that.
>
> > Maybe one should record the TTL and Address Family of all packe
> We could assert that the TTL is an indication of distance traveled.
you might hypothesize it. but the wide variance in per-hop rtt would
seem to belie that.
> Maybe one should record the TTL and Address Family of all packets
> received from the internet ('inbound') at the next NANOG or IETF?
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:14:42PM +0100, nanog-...@mail.com wrote:
> Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their
> percentage of IPv6 traffic?
https://twitter.com/discourse/status/679808652128030720
We're a smallish content source.
- Matt
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Niels Bakker wrote:
> https://www.stateoftheinternet.com/trends-visualizations-ipv6-adoption-ipv4-exhaustion-global-heat-map-network-country-growth-data.html
Thanks, I looked at that link before I posted. Unfortunately the data is both
too coarse and too narrow to b
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 06:45 , Jared Mauch wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:13:41PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
I propose the following axiom: the greater the distance over which a
packet is forwarded, the less likely it is
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 04:41 , Job Snijders wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:32:11PM +0100, nanog-...@mail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Jared Mauch wrote:
>>> I currently see around 56.4:1 with the timing of peaks the same in v4 and
>>> v6.
>> So that's more in line with AMS
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:13:41PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> I propose the following axiom: the greater the distance over which a
>>> packet is forwarded, the less likely it is to be an IPv6 packet.
>>
>> that is a hypothesis not an axio
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:13:41PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I propose the following axiom: the greater the distance over which a
> > packet is forwarded, the less likely it is to be an IPv6 packet.
>
> that is a hypothesis not an axiom [...]
Thanks.
> but an interesting hypothesis. how do y
> I propose the following axiom: the greater the distance over which a
> packet is forwarded, the less likely it is to be an IPv6 packet.
that is a hypothesis not an axiom, especially without considerable
measurement to back it up. but an interesting hypothesis. how do
you propose to test it?
r
* nanog-...@mail.com [Wed 20 Jan 2016, 13:15 CET]:
Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on
their percentage of IPv6 traffic?
https://www.stateoftheinternet.com/trends-visualizations-ipv6-adoption-ipv4-exhaustion-global-heat-map-network-country-growth-data.html
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:32:11PM +0100, nanog-...@mail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Jared Mauch wrote:
> > I currently see around 56.4:1 with the timing of peaks the same in v4 and
> > v6.
> So that's more in line with AMS-IX (70G/4T) than Comcast/Swisscom
> then. AMS-IX:
> https:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Jared Mauch wrote:
> I currently see around 56.4:1 with the timing of peaks the same in v4 and v6.
So that's more in line with AMS-IX (70G/4T) than Comcast/Swisscom then. AMS-IX:
https://ams-ix.net/technical/statistics/sflow-stats/ipv6-traffic
- Jared (the First o
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 7:14 AM, nanog-...@mail.com wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their
> percentage of IPv6 traffic?
>
> Bonus points for sharing top IPv6 sources. Anything else than the usual
> suspects, Google/YouTube, Netflix and
35 matches
Mail list logo
