Hello,
nanog-isp at mail.com nanog-isp at mail.com Wed Jan 20 12:14:42 UTC 2016
Hello all,
Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their percentage of IPv6 traffic? Bonus points for sharing top IPv6 sources. Anything else than the usual suspects, Google/YouTube, Netflix and Facebook?
Some public information I've found so far: - Comcast around 25% IPv6 traffic (http://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/ip-protocols-software/facebook-ipv6-...) - Comcast has over 1 Tb/s (of mostly YouTube traffic) over IPv6 (http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in...) - Swisscom 26% IPv6 traffic, 60% YouTube (http://www.swinog.ch/meetings/swinog27/p/01_Martin_Gysi.pdf)
I'd be very much interested in hearing from smaller ISPs, especially those having a very limited number of IPv4 addresses and/or running out.
Thanks, Jared
The v6 numbers from ^ NANOG post are now more than 1 year old. Thought to re-bump this thread. Would it be possible to share updated numbers of v6 traffic share within your network and % contribution by top apps. Thanks a bunch! -- Vaibhav -------------------------- Vaibhav Bajpai www.vaibhavbajpai.com Postdoctoral Researcher TU Munich, Germany --------------------------
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017, at 14:51, Bajpai, Vaibhav wrote:
The v6 numbers from ^ NANOG post are now more than 1 year old. Thought to re-bump this thread. Would it be possible to share updated numbers of v6 traffic share within your network and % contribution by top apps.
Hello, A little late and "out-of-geography", but still... On small-ish French ISP we have : - on the residential-only FTTH part, where all clients have IPv6 by default (unless they do something to avoid using it - and some do) : up to 30% of total is IPv6, and at least 60% of IPv6 is with Google. - globally (residential+business), the rate drops to 9% with peaks towards 20% on week-ends and public holidays. Same thing with Google doing most of IPv6. For the record, apart Google, there are less than 10 ASes that have more than 1% (but less than 10%) of the total IPv6 traffic. Everybody else is just traces.... Also for the record, business customers are much more active in *rejecting* IPv6, either explictely (they say they want it disabled) or implicitly (they install their own router, not configured for IPv6). The bigger the business, the bigger the chance of rejection. -- R-A.F.
When you say some percentage is with Google, what do you mean by that ? What do you mean by "with Google" ? - Aaron Gould
More stats : https://as24904.kwaoo.net/as-stats/top.php We are one of raf's competitor in France, FTTH based operator ~ 20% of our customers are ipv6-enabled ~ 5% of total traffic is IPv6 On 19/06/2017 13:52, Aaron Gould wrote:
When you say some percentage is with Google, what do you mean by that ? What do you mean by "with Google" ?
- Aaron Gould
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017, at 14:17, fhr@fhrnet.eu wrote:
I assume it means 60% of all their IPv6 traffic is reaching Google services, ie GMail or YouTube. Exactly.
Or otherwise said, more than 60% of the IPv6 bytes (NOT flow entries) accounted via Sflow (residential) or sampled Netflow (whole traffic) come from or go to 2a00:1450::/29. We had month with over 67%.
On 18 June 2017 at 17:36, Radu-Adrian Feurdean < nanog@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
so for the record, business customers are much more active in *rejecting* IPv6, either explictely (they say they want it disabled) or implicitly (they install their own router, not configured for IPv6). The bigger the business, the bigger the chance of rejection.
Did they per chance state their reasons for rejecting it? -- Mukom Akong T. LinkedIn:Mukom <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mukom> | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ “When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017, at 08:18, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
On 18 June 2017 at 17:36, Radu-Adrian Feurdean <nanog@radu- adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:>> so for the record, business customers are much more active in
*rejecting* IPv6, either explictely (they say they want it disabled) or>> implicitly (they install their own router, not configured for IPv6). The>> bigger the business, the bigger the chance of rejection.
Did they per chance state their reasons for rejecting it?
Not explicitly. But when we get something like "turn off that IPv6 crap !" we take it for: - they don't have a clearly defined need for it - they don't know how to deal with it - they don't want to deal with things they don't need (see the irst point)... usually all of them at the same time. To make it short : education. And we as as small ISP we have neither the resources, nor the motivation (because $$$ on the issue is negative) to do it (the education). -- R-A.F.
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
To make it short : education. And we as as small ISP we have neither the resources, nor the motivation (because $$$ on the issue is negative) to do it (the education).
An ISP should be an enabler, and have a service portfolio to cover most customers need. Not all customers will want all the services, so if a customer doesn't want IPv6 then fine, turn it off for them. When they come back later and want it, they know you have it. You've done your part, and that's great! -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On 6/22/17, 3:00 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Radu-Adrian Feurdean" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of nanog@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017, at 08:18, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
On 18 June 2017 at 17:36, Radu-Adrian Feurdean <nanog@radu- adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:>> so for the record, business customers are much more active in
*rejecting* IPv6, either explictely (they say they want it disabled) or>> implicitly (they install their own router, not configured for IPv6). The>> bigger the business, the bigger the chance of rejection.
Did they per chance state their reasons for rejecting it?
Not explicitly. But when we get something like "turn off that IPv6 crap !" we take it for: - they don't have a clearly defined need for it - they don't know how to deal with it - they don't want to deal with things they don't need (see the irst point)... usually all of them at the same time.
That is my experience, too. When I was in IT, my response was to block IPv6 at the firewall (until I learned my firewall was incapable of examining IPv6 packets and therefore allowed ALL IPv6; I wasn’t allowed to change firewalls so I used a router ACL to block it while I reviewed our IPv6 security policy and looked for another job). When I was at an ISP, we could route IPv6 to the customer, but until they enabled it, no traffic would follow.
To make it short : education. And we as as small ISP we have neither the resources, nor the motivation (because $$$ on the issue is negative) to do it (the education).
I think you’re talking about business education, not technical IPv6 education, right? I recently posted my suggested technical reading list: http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/IPv6reading.html But I think you’re asking for a business education series that goes: 1. Enterprise business consideration of IPv6 a. It’s already on your network. All computers, tablets and phones have at least Link Local, and some set up tunnels. Plus, if your employees have dual-stack at home but single—stack VPN, you may not like your split tunnel. b. Lower latency. c. Using IPv6 in interesting ways, like Segment Routing, Terastream bit masking, IPv6 address as process ID. d. IPv4 runout doesn’t matter much to most enterprises. They only need a couple of addresses for new branch offices. Those enterprises who have their own IPv4 address block (from RIR, not ISP/LIR) should consider how much they could sell it for. At $15/address, a /16 approaches US$1 million, which is real money to most CTOs. http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/2017prices.htm 2. Enterprise IPv6 implementation guidance a. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7381 “Enterprise IPv6 Deployment Guidelines” b. Cost to Renumber and Sell IPv4 http://retevia.net/Downloads/EnterpriseRenumbering.pdf I’ll see if I can write up #1 into a single paper or blog post in the next few days. Anything else I should add? Lee
The RIPE lab tests don't indicate any compelling network performance edge for IPV6. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/examining-ipv6-performance. Large businesses have huge sunk costs in their existing infrastructure. Top it off with conservative bureaucratic mentalities and it is pretty clear why they avoid IPV4. ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 5:09:23 PM To: Radu-Adrian Feurdean; Mukom Akong T. Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6 traffic percentages? On 6/22/17, 3:00 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Radu-Adrian Feurdean" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of nanog@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017, at 08:18, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
On 18 June 2017 at 17:36, Radu-Adrian Feurdean <nanog@radu- adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:>> so for the record, business customers are much more active in
*rejecting* IPv6, either explictely (they say they want it disabled) or>> implicitly (they install their own router, not configured for IPv6). The>> bigger the business, the bigger the chance of rejection.
Did they per chance state their reasons for rejecting it?
Not explicitly. But when we get something like "turn off that IPv6 crap !" we take it for: - they don't have a clearly defined need for it - they don't know how to deal with it - they don't want to deal with things they don't need (see the irst point)... usually all of them at the same time.
That is my experience, too. When I was in IT, my response was to block IPv6 at the firewall (until I learned my firewall was incapable of examining IPv6 packets and therefore allowed ALL IPv6; I wasn�t allowed to change firewalls so I used a router ACL to block it while I reviewed our IPv6 security policy and looked for another job). When I was at an ISP, we could route IPv6 to the customer, but until they enabled it, no traffic would follow.
To make it short : education. And we as as small ISP we have neither the resources, nor the motivation (because $$$ on the issue is negative) to do it (the education).
I think you�re talking about business education, not technical IPv6 education, right? I recently posted my suggested technical reading list: http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/IPv6reading.html But I think you�re asking for a business education series that goes: 1. Enterprise business consideration of IPv6 a. It�s already on your network. All computers, tablets and phones have at least Link Local, and some set up tunnels. Plus, if your employees have dual-stack at home but single�stack VPN, you may not like your split tunnel. b. Lower latency. c. Using IPv6 in interesting ways, like Segment Routing, Terastream bit masking, IPv6 address as process ID. d. IPv4 runout doesn�t matter much to most enterprises. They only need a couple of addresses for new branch offices. Those enterprises who have their own IPv4 address block (from RIR, not ISP/LIR) should consider how much they could sell it for. At $15/address, a /16 approaches US$1 million, which is real money to most CTOs. http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/2017prices.htm 2. Enterprise IPv6 implementation guidance a. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7381 �Enterprise IPv6 Deployment Guidelines� b. Cost to Renumber and Sell IPv4 http://retevia.net/Downloads/EnterpriseRenumbering.pdf I�ll see if I can write up #1 into a single paper or blog post in the next few days. Anything else I should add? Lee
On 2017-06-23 09:09, Lee Howard wrote:
But I think you’re asking for a business education series that goes: 1. Enterprise business consideration of IPv6 a. It’s already on your network. All computers, tablets and phones have at least Link Local, and some set up tunnels. Plus, if your employees have dual-stack at home but single—stack VPN, you may not like your split tunnel.
Speaking with my Enterprise Day Job hat on... I started doing analytics on IPv6 client support regarding a (currently IPv4-only) employee-facing web app my team hosts. Turns out that in 15% of connections with IPv6, the IPv4 is coming from a subsidiary VPN, but the IPv6 isn't VPN'd -- supporting your point. (That number may be artificially low, in that not all of our business units restrict the users' source IP.)
d. IPv4 runout doesn’t matter much to most enterprises. They only need a couple of addresses for new branch offices. Those enterprises who have their own IPv4 address block (from RIR, not ISP/LIR) should consider how much they could sell it for. At $15/address, a /16 approaches US$1 million, which is real money to most CTOs.
When you get big enough (and go through enough mergers & acquisitions), RFC1918 runout becomes a serious, legitimate concern. That's been a big selling point for me. Jima
participants (10)
-
Aaron Gould -
Bajpai, Vaibhav -
fhr＠fhrnet.eu -
Jima -
Lee Howard -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Mukom Akong T. -
nanog＠jack.fr.eu.org -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
Rod Beck