Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2018-02-01 Thread nanog
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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2017-06-23 Thread Jima
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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2017-06-23 Thread Rod Beck
why they avoid IPV4. From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> 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, 3:0

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2017-06-23 Thread Lee Howard
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:>>

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2017-06-22 Thread Mukom Akong T.
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).

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2017-06-22 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson
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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2017-06-22 Thread Radu-Adrian Feurdean
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>>

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2017-06-19 Thread Radu-Adrian Feurdean
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

RE: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2017-06-19 Thread fhr

RE: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2017-06-19 Thread Aaron Gould
When you say some percentage is with Google, what do you mean by that ? What do you mean by "with Google" ? - Aaron Gould

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2017-06-18 Thread Radu-Adrian Feurdean
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

IPv6 traffic percentages?

2017-06-05 Thread Bajpai, Vaibhav
Hello, > nanog-isp at mail.com nanog-isp at mail.com > Wed Jan 20 12:14:42 UTC 2016 > > 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,

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-25 Thread Owen DeLong
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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-24 Thread Bruce Curtis
> 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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-21 Thread Job Snijders
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,

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-21 Thread Randy Bush
> 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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread nanog-isp
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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Matt Palmer
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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Job Snijders
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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Randy Bush
> 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?

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Owen DeLong
> 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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Owen DeLong
> 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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Randy Bush
>>> 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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Randy Bush
> 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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Tassos Chatzithomaoglou via NANOG
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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread nanog-isp
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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Job Snijders
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: >

IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread nanog-isp
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 Facebook? Some public information I've found so far: - Comcast around

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Job Snijders
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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Jared Mauch
> 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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Niels Bakker
* 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

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

2016-01-20 Thread Randy Bush
> 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?