> On Jan 14, 2024, at 19:50, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>
> Hi, Ryan:
>
> 1) " ... it accounts for 40% of the traffic at Google. ":
>
> Perhaps you were referring to the following?
>
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
>
> 2)If so, your quotation is
On 1/15/24 11:02 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 21:08, Michael Thomas wrote:
An ipv4 free network would be nice, but is hardly needed. There will
always be a long tail of ipv4 and so what? You deal with it at your
I mean Internet free DFZ, so that everyone is not forced to
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 21:08, Michael Thomas wrote:
> An ipv4 free network would be nice, but is hardly needed. There will
> always be a long tail of ipv4 and so what? You deal with it at your
I mean Internet free DFZ, so that everyone is not forced to maintain
two stacks at extra cost,
On 1/15/24 12:26 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 10:05, jordi.palet--- via NANOG wrote:
In actual customer deployments I see the same levels, even up to 85% of IPv6
traffic. It basically depends on the usage of the caches and the % of
residential vs corporate customers.
You
On 1/15/24 12:56 AM, jordi.palet--- via NANOG wrote:
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying "in actual deployments", which
doesn’t mean that everyone is deploying, we are missing many ISPs, we
are missing many enterprises.
I don't think what's going on internally with enterprise needs to
I strongly disagree that IPv6 is very much an afterthought.
A perfect example is that in Australia, our largest mobile network provider
Telstra, has completely moved to IPv6 single-stack on their mobile network
for pre-paid and post-paid customers. Russell Langton made the announcement
in
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 10:59, jordi.palet--- via NANOG wrote:
> No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying "in actual deployments", which doesn’t
> mean that everyone is deploying, we are missing many ISPs, we are missing
> many enterprises.
Because of low entropy of A-B pairs in bps volume, seeing
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying "in actual deployments", which doesn’t mean
that everyone is deploying, we are missing many ISPs, we are missing many
enterprises.
Saludos,
Jordi
@jordipalet
> El 15 ene 2024, a las 9:26, Saku Ytti escribió:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 10:05,
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 10:05, jordi.palet--- via NANOG wrote:
> In actual customer deployments I see the same levels, even up to 85% of IPv6
> traffic. It basically depends on the usage of the caches and the % of
> residential vs corporate customers.
You think you are contributing to the IPv6
All those measurements are missing the amount of traffic in the caches located
at the ISPs.
For each download passing thru AMSIX, there are thousands of multiples of that
download (videos, music, documents, static contents, OS updates, etc.) flowing
to thousands of customers. In some cases is
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 06:18, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
If 50٪ of the servers and 50% of the clients can do IPv6, the amount of
> IPv6 traffic will be around 25% since both ends have to do IPv6.
>
This assumes cosmological principle applies to the Internet,
osals, and it accounts for 40% of the traffic at Google.
>
> Ryan
>
> --
> *From:* Abraham Y. Chen
> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2024 3:45:32 AM
> *To:* Ryan Hamel
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org ; Michael Butler
> ; Chen, Abraham
> Y.
>
anog.org ; Michael Butler
; Chen, Abraham Y.
*Subject:* IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4
address block
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take
care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Hi, Ryan:
1) " ... Save y
Thank you, everyone, for your responses.
Abe, I appreciate your enthisam but it is obvious you are not interested in
collaboration. You are singularly-minded and trollish.
I am assigning your email address to my spam filters. I will not see any
future communication from you.
O.
On Sat, Jan
Hi, Seth:
0) Thanks for bringing up this pair of Drafts.
1) While I believe your "IPv4 Unicast Extension" team carried on with
the first, Avinta got accidentally exposed to the second. After analyzed
the hurdle it faced in adding on to RFC1918, the EzIP Project is now
focusing on
On 1/12/24 11:54 AM, Darrel Lewis wrote:
On Jan 12, 2024, at 11:47 AM, Seth David Schoen wrote:
Michael Thomas writes:
I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC that
makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If it works
for you, great, if
> On Jan 12, 2024, at 11:47 AM, Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
> Michael Thomas writes:
>
>> I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC that
>> makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If it works
>> for you, great, if not your problem. It would at
Michael Thomas writes:
> I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC that
> makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If it works
> for you, great, if not your problem. It would at least stop all of these
> recurring arguments that we could salvage it
On 1/12/24 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
Frankly, I care less. No matter how you use whatever IPv4 space you
attempt to cajole into whatever new form of degraded service, the
simple fact remains. IPv4 is a degraded technology that only continues
to get worse over time. NAT was bad.
like me and our projects.
-- Original message --
From: Owen DeLong via NANOG
To: Abraham Y. Chen
Cc: "Chen, Abraham Y." , nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address
block
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:45:22 -0800
Frank
24 9:24:18 AM
To: Michael Butler
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Where to Use 240/4 Re:
202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
, January 12, 2024 3:45:32 AM
To: Ryan Hamel
Cc: nanog@nanog.org ; Michael Butler
; Chen, Abraham Y.
Subject: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address
block
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when
clicking links or opening attachments
on behalf of
Abraham Y. Chen
*Sent:* Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:24:18 AM
*To:* Michael Butler
*Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
*Subject:* Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take
care when clic
From: NANOG on behalf of Abraham Y.
Chen
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:24:18 AM
To: Michael Butler
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take
Hi, Michael:
1) " ... While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a
private setting, using them might also be .. a challenge. ... ":
EzIP uses 240/4 netblock only within the RAN (Regional Area
Network) as "Private" address, not "publicly" routable, according to the
25 matches
Mail list logo
