[AusNOG] IPv6

[Mark ZZZ Smith]

+1, traffic != sites. 
If you (or in the context of an ISP, your customers) access a lot of Youtube, Netflix or Akamai hosted content, as most people do, they'll get a lot of it over native IPv6 if it is available.
      From: Scott Howard <scott at doc.net.au>
 To: Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net> 
Cc: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net> 
 Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 2:07
 Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPv6
   


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.
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/20150331/9079bf3e/attachment.html>