[AusNOG] IPv6

[Robert Hudson]

Hi Noel (and all),

I think Noel has proven that his personal usage of IPv6 is small. I don't
think anyone can argue that.

I know that although I see a lot of sites there in Noel's list that are
familiar, my IPv6 usage would be much higher in terms of volume - my kids
have managed to burn through a 150GB quota several times, and they do it
through a mix of YouTube and ABC iView (iView isn't unmetered for me on
IPv6). I also have a natively IPv6 connection (through Internode), though
this is about to change as I change ISPs, I will be seeking a tunnel
provider if I can make it work on my router.

As a rule, I don't see any significant performance issues (or significant
benefits) when using IPv6 (I can easily enable and disable it as I wish on
my PCs, and I have a <10Mbps ADSL2 connection). I do know that I absolutely
need IPv6 for some services that I consume at present (one of my corporate
VPN solutions requires IPv6, and although it will tunnel it over IPv4 if
necessary, that has a significant performance impact - it is the exception
that proves the rule I mentioned).

I might try to set up some monitoring to check my usage - as per Noel's
individual results, my results won't be statistically significant for the
general population, but I will hopefully be able to add another data point.

The people who can give useful stats are our ISPs and CSPs (IXs too
perhaps?), who have significant aggregate traffic stats they can view and
interpret.

Regards,

Robert
On 31/03/2015 9:32 AM, "Noel Butler" <noel.butler at ausics.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> 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
> :)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150331/f6b50d07/attachment.html>