[AusNOG] IPv6

[Noel Butler]

On 31/03/2015 01:07, Scott Howard wrote: 

> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net> wrote:
> 
>> The indepth details http://bit.ly/1HWhSDq [1]
> 
> 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.

I visit youtube at least once every 2 days or so, doesnt mean to say any
my subs have new posts, so I may not stay longer than a few seconds - I
dont take any notice on whats recommended for me, so my numbers are far
far far from your estimates, much more closer to mine, in fact well less
than 8%. 

> 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

Well, the number of sites reachable is just as important, in fact, no,
it's more important. 
Because then to prove your IPv6 is such a huge traffic success all you
need do is live on youtube - but thats hardly a true picture of the
state of IPv6 usability, is it. 

> 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.

I have proved that I set out to do. I hardly expect teh IPv6 fanbois to
be overly happy with my results, I expected a large number of flames
from them :) 
 

Links:
------
[1] http://bit.ly/1HWhSDq
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150331/e44ff3fb/attachment-0001.html>