IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org> Wed, 19 February 2020 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <nygren@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A4D1208FC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:42:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6kYJNXkM3Y5E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:42:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-f44.google.com (mail-wr1-f44.google.com [209.85.221.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8469C1208EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:42:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-f44.google.com with SMTP id u6so1822999wrt.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:42:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+Rw5bteLK1jc6sAoM254TYdTEEglfrAHWn+fcAxEgLE=; b=KViVrie2FCcS63/7UbsCdvKB08PpHQSDcHqJldUIwIJKfY9Myax5p/l3BBiPiBGUZ4 I6dFX7JzNqHUXlommfUqLsa+Qewti9e/koG6Qpi2j9VzPmP64qhrpfpqeb3UD+Pt0Vdm Yzx4mws9Et/PbKxouS+Hu9AjTAjZHgth2UGVgGTe8NygEaC4/E2YWRGhe5VE+5Vg3tDp aehiXw0AVq5H6QodXEHVWRED3Qu/NXyu6UTimvCFaCJp47D21izkwqCLkRewpXSmKYsI i7cBIGXVH4UfwyAfBwn9wMnBqvwl6SFcZeVz6Xj0PUTgm5Fnm1igt5SJPOuXCw5NcOj9 xDnA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW0YMQgemtGOYFFZ0iHf6kRi/FQto6jo7wEcleiOaDFLT4pgcQf iLg8uhKvBhbrSwakgAPX0su5+jZKjgPgphlJS+w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx5hP8wiUKbOwFgt31pUgbt/eYmQ10mZMG+BPXw774NFGcjsRP6UD/45uj5zgA0ZoHgwloXkS4dSPHjFXnb01Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4a8c:: with SMTP id o12mr36244801wrq.43.1582137770907; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:42:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <PR3P194MB0843ACAE01F33CEC57266A1AAE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAL9jLab3GN5eEwbC1cHQkG9onUn5rry7OMykQ7MiRGo90TKizg@mail.gmail.com> <PR3P194MB08432397118C0AB443EC7611AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <PR3P194MB08432397118C0AB443EC7611AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:42:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKC-DJjJbq_pD4uX75gBSEDzgtH8inVx8eh9FLqbYF6ikzcU=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d21ec3059ef22777"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OZbzQffr0jk3JaRO1GvXRupH1v0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:42:55 -0000

It really is a composite story of individual ISPs, devices, and content.
Some stats I published two years ago from the perspective of one CDN:
https://blogs.akamai.com/2018/06/six-years-since-world-ipv6-launch-entering-the-majority-phases.html

and things have grown since.  For example, Akamai just peaked at 21 Tbps of
global IPv6 traffic delivered:
https://blogs.akamai.com/2020/02/at-21-tbps-reaching-new-levels-of-ipv6-traffic.html

During a peak like that, some large countries and customers
can see a majority of traffic being IPv6.  You can see some of the wide
variation between ISPs here:

https://www.akamai.com/us/en/resources/our-thinking/state-of-the-internet-report/state-of-the-internet-ipv6-adoption-visualization.jsp#networks

(There are also a few consumer electronics devices holding the numbers down
in large residential networks.)

         Erik




On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:35 PM Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
wrote:

> >> these numbers are ~2yrs old... but 25% is not "almost nobody".
>
> Actually, devilations in percentages makes things worse, some think it is
> 25% others think it is 30% others think no IPv6 at all :) and all these
> percentages are incorrect because only one thing can make it clear, to find
> an official solution announced for everybody stating that what should we do
> in such situation.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Khaled Omar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 6:51 PM
> To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
> Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:28 AM Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > From what I see in the real world, IPv4 still dominating and almost
> nobody started using IPv6, and also, I didn’t find any solution applied
> practically in today’s networks for this issue.
> >
>
> I don't think it's accurate to say: "almost nobody started using ipv6"
>
>
> https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/2018/state-of-ipv6-deployment-2018/
>
> these numbers are ~2yrs old... but 25% is not "almost nobody".
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email