On 24 Nov 2022, at 19:53, Abraham Y. Chen<ayc...@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.ga21...@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,b...@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.ga21...@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
