On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:42 , Mike Jones <m...@mikejones.in> wrote: > On 20 November 2012 16:05, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> wrote: >> On Nov 20, 2012, at 08:45 , Owen DeLong <o...@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
