[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       nanog
Subject:    Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC
From:       "Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta ! com>
Date:       2022-12-03 23:44:42
Message-ID: acb48ea0-1993-f994-4878-e4124cd95ce5 () avinta ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Dear Mark:

1) "... Google's data also shows businesses making at about 4% if you 
look at the weekly trends that show IPv6 usage spiking on the weekend as 
business users traffic drops off. ...": Perhaps the better 
interpretation of this fluctuation is because the residential use (more 
IPv6) of the Internet peaks up during the weekend, and holidays. In 
fact, work from home during COVID-19 had a notable effect to this graph. 
Along this line, you may enjoy reviewing the following article and 
discussions:

https://circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit/ \



Regards,


Abe (2022-12-03 18:40 EST)



On 2022-11-27 21:31, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > On 24 Nov 2022, at 19:53, Abraham Y. Chen<aychen@avinta.com>  wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Joe:
> > 
> > 0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you brought up.
> > 
> > 1) "...https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we've \
> > gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years.... ":  Your numbers may be deceiving. 
> > A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and ratified on \
> > 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few years more than your \
> > impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over quarter of a century.
> Which doesn't change that fact that the traffic to Google has gone from ~0% to 40% \
> in 12 years.  No one claimed that Google has been measuring IPv6 traffic since the \
> very beginning nor does it really matter how long it has been since IPv6 was \
> defined.  What we are seeing is strong continuing growth in IPv6 usage where the S \
> curve is a long way from flattening off. 
> > B. If you read closely, the statement  "The graph shows the percentage of users \
> > that access Google over IPv6." above the graph actually means "equipment \
> > readiness". That is, how many Google users have IPv6 capable devices. This is \
> > similar as the APNIC statistics whose title makes this clearer. However, having \
> > the capability does not mean the owners are actually using it. Also, this is not \
> > general data, but within the Google environment. Since Google is one of the \
> > stronger promoters of the IPv6, this graph would be at best the cap of such data.
> If you read it correctly Google is measuring actual traffic.  Thats actual data \
> flowing to and from Google's servers be it Gmail, YouTube, search traffic or \
> anything else.  It does mean that the owners of the devices are using IPv6. 
> > C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic statistics. \
> > Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive search. (If you know of any, \
> > I would appreciate to receive a lead to such.) The closest that we could find is \
> > % of IPv6 in AMS-IX traffic statistics (see URL below). It is currently at about \
> > 5-6% and has been tapering off to a growth of less than 0.1% per month recently, \
> > after a ramp-up period in the past. (Similar saturation behavior can also be \
> > found in the above Google graph.) 
> > https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html
> What makes that "more meaningful" data.  I just see different populations of users \
> being measured.  Google's data also shows businesses making at about 4% if you look \
> at the weekly trends that show IPv6 usage spiking on the weekend as business users \
> traffic drops off. 
> > D.  One interesting parameter behind the last one is that as an Inter-eXchange \
> > operator, AMS-IX should see very similar percentage traffic mix between IPv6 and \
> > IPv4. The low numbers from AMS-IX does not support this viewpoint for matching \
> > with your observation. In addition, traffic through IX is the overflow among \
> > backbone routers. A couple years ago, there was a report that peering \
> > arrangements among backbone routers for IPv6 were much less matured then IPv4, \
> > which meant that AMS-IX should be getting more IPv6 traffic than the mix in the \
> > Internet core. Interpreted in reverse, % of IPv6 in overall Internet traffic \
> > should be less than what AMS-IX handles. 
> > E. This is a quite convoluted topic that we only scratched the surface. They \
> > should not occupy the attention of colleagues on this list. However, I am willing \
> > to provide more information to you off-line, if you care for further discussion. 
> > 2)  "...https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080108011057.GA21168@cisco.com/  ...":  My \
> > basic training was in communication equipment hardware design. I knew little \
> > about software beyond what I needed for my primary assignment. Your example, \
> > however, reminds me of a programing course that I took utilizing APL (A \
> > Programming Language) for circuit analysis, optimization and synthesis. It was \
> > such a cryptic symbolic language that classmates (mostly majored in EE hardware) \
> > were murmuring to express their displeasure. One day we got a homework assignment \
> > to do something relatively simple. Everyone struggled to write the code to do the \
> > job. Although most of us did get working codes, they were pages long. The \
> > shortest one was one full page. Upon reviewed all homework, the professor smiled \
> > at us and told us to look for the solution section at the end of the text book. \
> > It turned out to be the answer for a problem in the next chapter to be covered. \
> > The code was only three lines long! Although it did not have the codes for \
> > debugging purposes, it covered all error messages expected. It was such a shocker \
> > that everyone quieted down to focus on the subject for the rest of the semester. \
> > During my first employment, we had the need to optimize circuit designs. Since I \
> > was the only staff who knew about it, I ended up being the coordinator between \
> > several hardware designers and the supporting programmer. From that teaching, I \
> > am always looking for the most concise solution to an issue, not being distracted \
> > or discouraged by the manifestation on the surface. 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language)
> > 
> > 3) Fast forward half a century, I am hoping that my "one-line code" serves the \
> > purpose of "there exists" an example in proofing a mathematical theorem for  \
> > inspiring software colleagues to review the network codes in front of them for \
> > improvement, instead of presenting such as a valid hurdle to progress. 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > 
> > Abe (2022-11-24 03:53 EST)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 2022-11-21 19:30, Joe Maimon wrote:
> > > David Conrad wrote:
> > > > Barry,
> > > > 
> > > > On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM,bzs@theworld.com  wrote:
> > > > > We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years with very \
> > > > > limited success
> > > > According tohttps://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks \
> > > > like we've gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 \
> > > > years.https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6  has it around 30%. Given an Internet \
> > > > population of about 5B, this can (simplistically and wrongly) argued to mean \
> > > > 1.5-2B people are using IPv6. For a transition to a technology that the vast \
> > > > majority of people who pay the bills will neither notice nor care about, and \
> > > > for which the business case typically needs projection way past the normal \
> > > > quarterly focus of shareholders, that seems pretty successful to me. 
> > > > But back to the latest proposal to rearrange deck chairs on the IPv4 Titanic, \
> > > > the fundamental and obvious flaw is the assertion of "commenting out one line \
> > > > code". There isn't "one line of code". There are literally _billions_ of \
> > > > instances of "one line of code", the vast majority of which need to be \
> > > > changed/deployed/tested with absolutely no business case to do so that isn't \
> > > > better met with deploying IPv6+IPv4aaS. I believe this has been pointed out \
> > > > numerous times, but it falls on deaf ears, so the discussion gets a bit \
> > > > tedious. 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > -drc
> > > > 
> > > Had the titanic stayed afloat some hours more, many more would have survived \
> > > and been rescued when assistance eventually arrived. So that makes this a \
> > > debate over whether this is deck chair re-arrangement or something more \
> > > meaningful. 
> > > As I and others have pointed out, it depends on how it is used. And perhaps the \
> > > attempt should be made regardless of knowing in advance which it will be. 
> > > You assertion needs some back of the envelope numbers, which once provided, I \
> > > suspect will render your estimate grossly incorrect. 
> > > You can hardly attempt to convince anybody that 240/4 as unicast would not be \
> > > the more trivial change made in any of these products natural life cycle \
> > > points. 
> > > Especially as we have examples of what that type of effort might look like. \
> > > IGTFY and here 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080108011057.GA21168@cisco.com/
> > > 
> > > The burdensome position is ridiculous even more so when stated with a straight \
> > > face. 
> > > Joe
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > -- 
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > www.avast.com


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]