[AusNOG] IPv6

[Shane Short]

I think he's trying to show how much effort people will go to, resist 
change and/or prove that IPv6 "isn't ready"; rather than investing that 
time into going dual stack to begin with. ;)

(tongue firmly in cheek)

-Shane

Scott Howard wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net 
> <mailto:noel.butler at ausics.net>> wrote:
>
>     The indepth details http://bit.ly/1HWhSDq
>
>
> So 6 out of 63 SITES worked with IPv6.
>
> 2 of those 6 sites combined (given you've treated Google and Youtube 
> as separate sites) account for around 25-40% of internet traffic 
> (depending on which numbers you believe).  So given that you started 
> out talking about traffic rather than sites your real number is closer 
> to 30-45% of traffic.
>
> Add in Facebook and Netflix, which you may not access directly but 
> which account for a reasonable percentage of Internet traffic and I'm 
> sure you can see how people are reporting over 50% of TRAFFIC as being 
> IPv6.
>
> Your testing is confused as it's not clear if you're trying to test 
> the number of sites (as per your conclusion) or the volume of traffic 
> (as per your introduction).  If you're trying to prove that we're not 
> ready for IPv6-only clients, then congratulations you've succeeded.  
> If you're trying to show that IPv6 can't help to (for example) lessen 
> the volume of traffic that would need to be handled by CGNAT 
> infrastructure in a dual-stack environment, you've failure.
>
>   Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150330/98c40feb/attachment.html>