Subject: Actual IPv6 deployment observed

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:45:24 +0200

I quote from thepiratebay.org home page:

IPv4 21.613.113 peers (10.992.697 seeders + 10.620.416 leechers) in 
1.969.865 torrents on tracker.
IPv6 210.410 peers (115.584 seeders + 94.826 leechers) in 174.895 
torrents on tracker.

Most numbers are about 1%, and about 9% of torrents contain one or more 
IPv6-capable peers. Ooh aah.

Arnt

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:07:00 +0200

> Most numbers are about 1%, and about 9% of torrents contain one or  
> more IPv6-capable peers. Ooh aah.

You do have to understand that IPv6 support was available in  
BitTorrent clients for a long time, but then the Pirate Bay deployed  
trackers (servers) that were incompatible with the existing clients,  
so only people who both have IPv6 and a recent IPv6-capable client are  
in those numbers. I had to null-route the PB IPv6 address to get my  
old client to work again over IPv4...

Another example of how NOT to migrate from old stuff to new stuff.

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:39:15 +0200

Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> so only people who both have IPv6 and a recent IPv6-capable client 
> are  in those numbers. I had to null-route the PB IPv6 address to get 
> my  old client to work again over IPv4...

So considerably more than 1% of random filesharing users have IPv6 
already? I assume that also means >1% of random DSL connections have 
IPv6 already.

Arnt

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:55:05 +0200

> already? I assume that also means >1% of random DSL connections have

No, it is not "Native IPv6 over DSL" or any other form unfortunately.

ou have to start thanking Microsoft for pushing 6to4 and especially
Teredo, having it automatically on new platforms and having clients like
uTorrent auto-enable it on install for those that don't.

For instance read a bit here:
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2008-August/003051.html

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:43:24 +0200

Jeroen Massar writes:
> You have to start thanking Microsoft for pushing 6to4 and especially 
> Teredo, having it automatically on new platforms and having clients 
> like uTorrent auto-enable it on install for those that don't.

uTorrent seems to be the guilty party, since it correlates with TPB. 
This must mean that silently enabling IPv6 increases the number of 
people for whom IPv6 works by a factor of around 100 (from <0.01% in 
the general population to ~1% among TPB users). That's good news. 
Native IPv6 would be better than Teredo, but seeing a couple of hundred 
thousand random-user endpoints work isn't bad.

(http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/08/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/ 
said <0.01%.)

Anrt

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:02:27 +0200

On 27 jul 2009, at 9:43, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> the general population

> (http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/08/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/  

The 0.01% they talk about is TRAFFIC, not USERS. And it's bogus  
anyway. For instance, just the traffic through the AMS-IX is many  
times more than what they measured:

http://www.ams-ix.net/technical/stats/sflow/

(Note that they use meaningless lying graphs = don't start at 0.)

At AMS-IX, native IPv6 traffic is now 0.3% on average, up from 0.1% a  
year or so ago. When I did some web bug measurements years ago my  
results where about 0.16% IPv6 users (1 in 666). Last year, Google got  
0.25%.

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:29:28 -0600

On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:02 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

>> people for whom IPv6 works by a factor of around 100 (from <0.01%  
>> in the general population
>
>> (http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/08/the-end-is-near-but-is- 
>> ipv6/ said <0.01%.)
>
> anyway.

Not that I want to have this discussion here again (folks should
revisit the archives), but it is not bogus, you just have to understand
what's being measured - and continues to be measured (and the same
measurement is today about 20x that .0025% from last August - I'll
write something up on this (with details again on methodology) within
the next month or two.

> For instance, just the traffic through the AMS-IX is many times more  
> than what they measured:

AMS-IX is an anomaly and not representative of the global Internet
in this regard, _IMO.  Then again, it is another data point, and
so long as folks know what's being measured, it is simply another
data point.

> At AMS-IX, native IPv6 traffic is now 0.3% on average, up from 0.1%  
> a year or so ago. When I did some web bug measurements years ago my  
> results where about 0.16% IPv6 users (1 in 666). Last year, Google  
> got 0.25%.

To your point, that Google stat was users,not traffic.  I suspect
their traffic rates are much lower than that :-)

-danny

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:08:54 +0200

> revisit the archives)

This is what I had to say about it:

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/08/researchers-ipv6-traffic-a-mere-0-0026-percent-of-total.ars

> To your point, that Google stat was users,not traffic.

Very true, my apologies.

> I suspect their traffic rates are much lower than that :-)

They don't publish AAAA records without prior arrangement so I would  
tend to agree.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:08:38 -0400

If we are going to get that number up we need to have an application
layer interface that is 100% indifferent to the underlying network
version.

We seem to have slid backwards here. When the Web code was written it
was network agnostic. You could switch from TCP/IP to DECNETIV or OSI
by only changing one module. Since IP won we have had ten years of
IPv4 centric code written.

This is a Y2K problem without the deadline.

If we are going to get IPv6 deployed, someone has to think through and
plan a transition strategy with incentives. It i clear that people on
this list do not regard that as IETF work which is fair enough. But
the IETF has to be prepared to cooperate with whoever does take on
that task and has to not hinder it by throwing muddled end to end
ideology into the mix.

The key word there being 'muddled'. End to end was a pragmatic
argument, if people turn it into dogma they are missing the point.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum<[email-masked]> wrote:
>> This must mean that silently enabling IPv6 increases the number of people
>> for whom IPv6 works by a factor of around 100 (from <0.01% in the general
>> population
>
>> (http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/08/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/ said
>> <0.01%.)
>
> The 0.01% they talk about is TRAFFIC, not USERS. And it's bogus anyway. For
> instance, just the traffic through the AMS-IX is many times more than what
> they measured:
>
> At AMS-IX, native IPv6 traffic is now 0.3% on average, up from 0.1% a year
> or so ago. When I did some web bug measurements years ago my results where
> about 0.16% IPv6 users (1 in 666). Last year, Google got 0.25%.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

-- 
-- 
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/