IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] ILNP: existing applications & other critiques

Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net> Tue, 13 November 2012 04:44 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@castlepoint.net>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A4E21F88A0 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:44:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.029
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jMnQUYjPjsao for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:44:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.friendswithtools.org (unknown [64.78.239.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B0CA21F87DF for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:44:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dspam (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.friendswithtools.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1EC0020E3 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 04:44:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mbp.castlepoint.net (174-29-211-99.hlrn.qwest.net [174.29.211.99]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.friendswithtools.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 454C3CD; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:44:15 -0700 (MST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <50A1CB11.4050809@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:44:14 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <78553EF9-D0D4-4914-89CC-E9CC1F435FDB@castlepoint.net>
References: <A5F253CD-71F6-49BD-95CC-897F803860F1@gmail.com> <50A19CA4.8000007@firstpr.com.au> <44EED7F5-2C8E-4784-B72D-EF28C8366F61@castlepoint.net> <50A1CB11.4050809@firstpr.com.au>
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent
X-DSPAM-Processed: Mon Nov 12 21:44:16 2012
X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9899
X-DSPAM-Improbability: 1 in 9809 chance of being spam
X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000
X-DSPAM-Signature: 50a1d020199635765521236
X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, Mime-Version*OS+X, 0.01000, From*Amante+shane, 0.01000, 2012+at, 0.01000, Mime-Version*Mail+#+1499, 0.01000, at+#+#+PM, 0.01000, Mime-Version*6.2+1499, 0.01000, Subject*Re+rrg, 0.01000, Mime-Version*OS+#+#+#+1499, 0.01000, Mime-Version*X+#+6.2, 0.01000, Mime-Version*1.0+Mac, 0.01000, Mime-Version*Mail+6.2, 0.01000, From*Shane+#+shane, 0.01000, From*Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>, 0.01000, Mime-Version*Mac+#+#+#+6.2, 0.01000, From*Amante+#+castlepoint.net, 0.01000, Mime-Version*Mac+OS, 0.01000, Mime-Version*1.0+#+OS, 0.01000, Mime-Version*X+Mail, 0.01000, Mime-Version*1.0+#+#+X, 0.01000, 2012+#+#+#+PM, 0.01000, From*shane+castlepoint.net, 0.01000, From*Shane+#+#+castlepoint.net, 0.01000, Mime-Version*1.0+#+#+#+Mail, 0.01000, Mime-Version*Mac+#+X, 0.01000, Cc*rrg+irtf.org, 0.01000, Nov+#+#+at, 0.01000, On+Nov, 0.01000
Cc: RRG RG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] ILNP: existing applications & other critiques
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 04:44:17 -0000

Robin,

On Nov 12, 2012, at 9:22 PM, Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Shane,
> 
> Thanks for these links.  The Verizon Wireless slide 14 had no
> information on how the IPv6 traffic volume compared with that of IPv4.
> Maybe such information was implied in slide 13 but I couldn't clearly
> understand it.

No operators share traffic volume statistics publicly, for competitive reasons.  I work as an operator, I should know.  :-)


> Comcast stated that "approximately 6% of the 2012 Olympics served over
> YouTube to Comcast customers was over IPv6."  This is a substantial
> share of real ordinary user traffic.  I wonder what the impetus for this
> was - why didn't the hosts use IPv4?

Ask Comcast?  But, if I were to guess, I would suspect that implementation of "Happy Eyeballs" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs> in client Operating Systems (Mac OS X) and browsers (i.e.: Chrome, Firefox, etc.) *slightly* favors IPv6 transport compared to IPv4 transport during DNS resolution and connection set-up.  Viola: more v6 traffic than v4.

-shane

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email