On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:42 , Mike Jones <mike@mikejones.in> wrote:
On 20 November 2012 16:05, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
On Nov 20, 2012, at 08:45 , Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low for a number of reasons.
AMS-IX publishes stats too: <https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/>
This is probably a better view of overall percentage on the Internet than a specific company's content. It shows order of 0.5%.
Why do you think Google's numbers are lower than the real total?
They are also different stats which is why they give such different numbers.
In a theoretical world with evenly distributed traffic patterns if 1% of users were IPv6 enabled it would require 100% of content to be IPv6 enabled before your traffic stats would show 1% of traffic going over IPv6.
If these figures are representative (google saying 1% of users and AMSIX saying 0.5% of traffic) then it would indicate that dual stacked users can push ~50% of their traffic over IPv6. If this is even close to reality then that would be quite an achievement.
There is even more complexity. Remember the 6-to-4 stuff? Suppose a user on Network A used a tunnel broker on HE, and his traffic passed over AMS-IX encapsulated in v4? He would show up as v4 to AMS-IX and v6 to Google. Lies, damned lies, and graphs. :) -- TTFN, patrick