IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Kossut Tomasz - Hurt <Tomasz.Kossut@orange.com> Fri, 08 August 2014 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <Tomasz.Kossut@orange.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 147841B2BF4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.186
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 EDLvJhBsLA2w for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailin.tpsa.pl (mailout.tpsa.pl [212.160.172.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D101D1B2C0B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 10.236.62.138 (EHLO OPE10HT04.tp.gk.corp.tepenet) ([10.236.62.138]) by mailin.tpsa.pl (MOS 4.4.2a-FCS FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CHJ84207; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:20:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Kossut Tomasz - Hurt <Tomasz.Kossut@orange.com>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
Thread-Index: AQHPswOAM/qTgbBXv06rbKkXEA41n5vGrYlQ
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:19:28 +0000
Message-ID: <A0BB7AD89EA705449C486BDB5FDCBC7B0EE744AD@OPE10MB06.tp.gk.corp.tepenet>
References: <DE860EBC-171E-46E7-A3B6-5E8B79A453CC@cisco.com> <53DFEC6C.3010707@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGRUWxT5XiNxMi_S5VgYtGMLb_FVHXN-ZfGpcY=geix15g@mail.gmail.com> <53E06AC9.9010908@fud.no> <4F7D76F6-BD81-453B-94DC-A3C3DFF68505@delong.com> <8600C096-37D0-4651-92C1-BCFDBA674433@nominum.com> <CAD6AjGTBfyT-zNDJtBKCNtRxd=Hi07678Sr_-HgSGYbjAiF3Tg@mail.gmail.com> <C5281716-DC04-42E6-AC82-0D53E5DA0284@nominum.com> <53E1236A.605@fud.no> <m1XEkJJ-0000BuC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20140805195402.GO51793@Space.Net> <m1XElwg-0000BbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D00834AF.68B6C%Lee@asgard.org> <CAD6AjGQJ3PXpGkk9Cd4d-MhExZ9QrpiseyAqPqmpXzQ-HCyDwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2=dMg6sua+9v28t173TQVYet6pDU7Xv6RWkbGjqA1ziA@mail.gmail.com> <D00A8AFF.26D18%evyncke@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D00A8AFF.26D18%evyncke@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: pl-PL, en-US
Content-Language: pl-PL
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A0BB7AD89EA705449C486BDB5FDCBC7B0EE744ADOPE10MB06tpgkco_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=8/50, refid=2.7.2:2014.8.8.130619:17:8.129, ip=, rules=__HAS_FROM, FROM_NAME_PHRASE, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __IMS_MSGID, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __IN_REP_TO, __CT, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __MIME_VERSION, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_WWW, __URI_NO_PATH, ECARD_KNOWN_DOMAINS, __STOCK_PHRASE_7, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE, SUPERLONG_LINE, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_NEG, __RATWARE_SIGNATURE_3_N1, __URI_NS, HTML_70_90
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=mailin.tpsa.pl
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0C0203.53E4DC90.015B, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2012-12-31 09:39:00, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0C0203.53E4DC90.015B, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2012-12-31 09:39:00, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 3b4cc769aff48891f03de6b30b037e7c
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/qpKA6_rmmfRnGbY9JmepKvo2nhI
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:20:10 -0000

Hi,
Internet traffic for OPL ipv6 -464xlat users (3G/4G)
Traffic till mid-July:
Ipv6 -60% (78% to Google)
Nat64 -40%
Traffic from mid-July up to now:
Ipv6 - 40%* (50% to Google)
Nat64- 60%

*On W28 we noticed abnormal drop of AAAA queries generated by users. It looks like some DS servers becomes Ipv4 only, or web browser ipv4 fallback takes place more often.. (we analyzing data)

Regards,
Tomasz

From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) [mailto:evyncke@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 2:12 PM
To: Lorenzo Colitti
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Lorenzo

For my education, do you have a pointer for a data point on:

From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com<mailto:lorenzo@google.com>>
A 4G handset with 464xlat will have ~50% of traffic native IPv6, ~45% NAT64, and ~5% 464xlat. 464 conversion is lossy and brittle, but if it's only used for 5% of traffic, then the operator might just say, "Who cares? I don't; and if somebody else does, they're free to use IPv6."

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email