Mike Jones 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.
If you assume that Youtube/Facebook/Netflix are 50% of the overall traffic, why wouldn't a dual stacked end point have half of its traffic as IPv6 after June??? Tony
