What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I
asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite
sawtooth there, big enough that we probably want to understand it.
I've had more customers ask and now willing to participate than ever before.
Any better suggestions? Or, maybe take your pissing mechanism and try a subject more worthy.
tv
It means that IPv6 geeks have lives too 
[..]
FIrst I've heard of such a thing.
There is a first time for everything 
The original organizers of W6D have zero
motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even
consider it for more than a picosecond.
As you where not part of that group of folks, how do you think you can
guess what their plans where? 
But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go
IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace
can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling
and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs.
There are then two possible results:
- an actual realization at the ISPs that there might be a day
that they need to do IPv6
- lawsuits from the ISPs because they got overloaded
in their callcenters blabla...
One of the other realizations was something that happened when the
Pirate Bay went IPv6-only as their IPv4 connectivity was broken, people
just appended .sixxs.org to the website and presto, they got the IPv6
version of the Pirate Bay over IPv4, including the torrents mind you.
Now the website itself was not a problem, the amount of traffic from
tracker was though, but blocking torrent clients and adding more boxes
solved that issue mostly.
The other realization was that the burden will quickly fall on sites
which provide IPv6 access, and that is something that will have turned
out in a similar way as the above into a situation that will not work
out positively either.
Just typing the above took longer than a picosecond, but it is always
good to know that there are people who can think that fast and consider
all the options
The current plan of turning on AAAAs will, in my guesses, not have a
major impact though it will break things for some people:
- folks who have IPv6 enabled already, already have issues with sites
when their local DNS recursor does not handle AAAA properly.
- folks who have IPv6 enabled already, already have issues with sites
when their connectivity is broken, it will now just start breaking
for sites that they 'rely' on a lot as they use them often, thus they
will realize that it is broken.
- folks who don't have IPv6 enabled (XP default mostly) won't notice a
thing as they have no AAAA support thus nothing will happen.
leaving mostly one group:
- people who are technically not so clueful but do see in the news all
the hype about IPv6 and suddenly start wanting it and enable IPv6
probably ending up trying to set up IPv6 and then breaking it in the
process. I have seen bunches of folks already getting IPv6 tunnels
solely for the reason of "being ready for IPv6 day", while they are
ready if they got working IPv4 and non-broken IPv6
nevertheless, the broken connectivity case is the one I think will be
seen the most, as the DNS case people should have noticed already if
they have issues with it, and that won't differ from the problems they
already have.
Greets,
Jeroen
[..]
FIrst I've heard of such a thing.
There is a first time for everything
The original organizers of W6D have zero
motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even
consider it for more than a picosecond.As you where not part of that group of folks, how do you think you can
guess what their plans where?
While I wasn't there, I have talked to many of them about the subject.
But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go
IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace
can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling
and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs.
Uh, right...
There are then two possible results:
- an actual realization at the ISPs that there might be a day
that they need to do IPv6
I think most ISPs realize that at this point, therefore, little or nothing
could be gained in this respect by such an action.
- lawsuits from the ISPs because they got overloaded
in their callcenters blabla...
This is absurd. There's no valid cause of action. No content provider
has a duty to prevent calls to an ISP's callcenter and there is no valid
basis for an ISP to argue that Google is liable to them because they
terminated services to their users.
One of the other realizations was something that happened when the
Pirate Bay went IPv6-only as their IPv4 connectivity was broken, people
just appended .sixxs.org to the website and presto, they got the IPv6
version of the Pirate Bay over IPv4, including the torrents mind you.
Now the website itself was not a problem, the amount of traffic from
tracker was though, but blocking torrent clients and adding more boxes
solved that issue mostly.
Yeah, I'm not seeing the point here or how that would relate to any
rational intent for World IPv6 Day.
The other realization was that the burden will quickly fall on sites
which provide IPv6 access, and that is something that will have turned
out in a similar way as the above into a situation that will not work
out positively either.
If you got all the way down to this point before realizing that IPv6-only
day at this stage was a bad idea, then, you weren't paying attention
to your earlier thoughts.
Just typing the above took longer than a picosecond, but it is always
good to know that there are people who can think that fast and consider
all the options
If you can type faster than you think, either your fingers are impressively
fast, or, your brain is impressively slow. I'll leave it to you to decide which
applies.
The current plan of turning on AAAAs will, in my guesses, not have a
major impact though it will break things for some people:
Which is exactly the intent... To have minimal impact, increase IPv6
deployment and awareness, and identify places where things do
break.
- folks who have IPv6 enabled already, already have issues with sites
when their local DNS recursor does not handle AAAA properly.
Right, but those folks also already have a visible effect that they
can debug.
- folks who have IPv6 enabled already, already have issues with sites
when their connectivity is broken, it will now just start breaking
for sites that they 'rely' on a lot as they use them often, thus they
will realize that it is broken.
Many of those folks don't go to the sites where they have issues and
so are unaware of the issues. This provides an opportunity to identify
and correct a much larger portion of those.
Finally, I think we need to make a differentiation here that you are
not making. I already have IPv6 enabled, but, I have none of the
issues you describe above because my IPv6 is working. The
real issue is folks who have all of the following:
+ IPv6 enabled
+ Machines that think they have a legitimate IPv6 next-hop
to the destination
+ The IPv6 next-hop is not working
or folks who have:
+ IPv6 connectivity
+ Broken DNS resolvers in their path that do not properly
pass along AAAA records.
- folks who don't have IPv6 enabled (XP default mostly) won't notice a
thing as they have no AAAA support thus nothing will happen.
True, but, these folks are not a reason that <content provider> cannot
turn on AAAA records.
leaving mostly one group:
- people who are technically not so clueful but do see in the news all
the hype about IPv6 and suddenly start wanting it and enable IPv6
probably ending up trying to set up IPv6 and then breaking it in the
process. I have seen bunches of folks already getting IPv6 tunnels
solely for the reason of "being ready for IPv6 day", while they are
ready if they got working IPv4 and non-broken IPv6
Actually, there are lots of folks running default OS configurations where
their OS has decided they have an IPv6 default route or such and will
experience problems. They are a trivially small percentage (0.1% or
less) of the population by most estimates, but, that's enough to prevent
some of the large content providers from deploying AAAA records
on their services at this time.
Thus, the point of W6D is to provide a safe-harbour day when all the
content providers can jump into the same pool together so that it doesn't
look like just one of them is broken to that subset of users. This will
allow us to better:
+ Scope the problem
+ Identify the affected users
+ Look at possible mitigation strategies
+ Measure and quantify the extent of the problem
nevertheless, the broken connectivity case is the one I think will be
seen the most, as the DNS case people should have noticed already if
they have issues with it, and that won't differ from the problems they
already have.
Agreed, but, this broken connectivity case is currently a stumbling block
to getting major content providers on to dual-stack, so, if we can get
data that allows us to work past that point, it's a pretty big win.
In all of my discussions with the W6D organizers, this has always been
the stated intent and expected benefit expressed by them. As such, I
simply don't see how v6 only would ever have fit into that plan.
Owen
Owen DeLong wrote:
FIrst I've heard of such a thing. The original organizers of W6D have zero
motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even
consider it for more than a picosecond.
It'd be a great way to get a point across.
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing:
http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
Increased traffic from less-geeky people = more sane numbers overall. The problem with the graphs on that site is that the audience is self selecting; so only when some major site says "go here!" do we get a more random(ish) audience, versus people setting up tunnelbrokers and the like.
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing.
You're assuming there's significant rollout of IPv6. Everything I've seen so far says that *starts* nowish, and more laterish this year, in any impacting way. Really, we're just just before the start of getting end user adoption to start rising.
But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go
IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace
can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling
and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs.
Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial at $dayjob.
No, it really wouldn't. What it would be, instead, would be an event with little or
no participation except people who are already very IPv6 aware and committed.
The goal here is to help bring IPv6 awareness to a larger group and demonstrate
that it can be deployed without significant damage to the existing infrastructure.
Owen
For our web presence, which has been dual-stack since 2004, we saw external IPv6 traffic rise 0.1% per year to 2010, when it 'leapt' to 1.0% and in 2011 so far the highest we've seen over any month is 1.8%, so it doubled in 2010 and is set to more than double in 2011. OK, so 2% is still small, but from tiny acorns...
SMTP is still well under 1% though.
Tim
In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106060732190.68892@goat.gigo.com>, Jason Fesler wr
ites:
> But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go
> IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace
> can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling
> and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs.Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web
sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even
remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial at
$dayjob.
IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for
that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only
sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64).
I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet
to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about
15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage
of the future network.
Owen
...
IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for
that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only
sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64).I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet
to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about
15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage
of the future network.Owen
Hm. With roughly 1B people on the internet today[0], 7 cycles of
doubling would mean that in 15 years, we'd have 128B people
on the internet?
I strongly suspect the historical growth curve will *not* continue
at that pace.
Matt
[0] World Internet Users Statistics and 2023 World Population Stats [1]
[1] I am strongly suspicious of their data, so my estimate lops their
number in half. If you believe their data, in seven doublings, we'll
be at 256B in 15 years. I find that number to be equally preposterous.
Internet' growth is measured by bandwidth rather than number of active
operators or prefixes. Maxing a router's backplane or upgrading it
won't change the network to a whole new thing, as most operators will
just keep the old ways over and over.
Considering the amount of trafic will double in the next 24 months or
so, wich seems a reasonable assumption, I think IPv6 trafic has some
more potential growth to come than v4, but even the later will still
grow.
Keeping that in mind makes me expect a very progressive curve for the
significance of IPv6 in the overall bandwidth usage stats, unless
eyeballs networks starts to make a major move towards IPv6 effective
deployments.
But honestly, while working mostly for eyballs networks, I can assure
you even the largest ain't close to ready for such a move 
In message <B53BEF53-F327-44ED-8F23-A85042E99B3F@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
>=20
> In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106060732190.68892@goat.gigo.com>, Jason =
Fesler wr
> ites:
>>> But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go
>>> IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the =
populace
>>> can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start =
calling
>>> and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs.
>>=20
>> Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web=20=>> sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even=20
>> remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial =
at=20
>> $dayjob.
>=20
> IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough =
for
> that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only
> sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64).I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the =
internet
to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles =
(about
15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage
of the future network.Owen
And without there being a strong IPv6 bias in the clients they will
continue to use IPv4/IPv6 on a 50/50 basis. I would be quite happy
to be proven wrong and only time will tell.
Well, todays Internet is made of 1B pairs of eyeballs with a roughly
average of 120kbps each. Todays average in France is closer to
180kbps, it was closer to 100kbps two years ago (the 3-strikes law
side-effect made individual bw consumption spikes with the emergence
of many streaming services, far more BW-hungry than soft P2P protocols
like eMule), whilst operators gained 8% of annual organic growth (18
to 21M subscribers). That's a bit more than 200% in 2 years. Before
that, the avergae bw consumtion was relativelly stable over the last 6
years or so, only the number of residential access subscribers grew.
Over the years to come, we'll still see some regions with a growing
number of individual accesses while the well-connected regions will
see their BW consumption grow even larger with new services. Isn't it
what FTTH deployments all around the world are all about ?
...
IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for
that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only
sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64).I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet
to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about
15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage
of the future network.Owen
Hm. With roughly 1B people on the internet today[0], 7 cycles of
doubling would mean that in 15 years, we'd have 128B people
on the internet?
Ah, but, today, we don't really have 1B people on the internet, we
have about 10,000,000 people on the internet and about
990,000,000 people behind NAT boxes, so, in 7 cycles of doubling
we'll be at 1,280,000,000 people on the internet.
I strongly suspect the historical growth curve will *not* continue
at that pace.
Likely, but, I couldn't resist pointing out the reality above anyway.
Even without the growth curves continuing, the IPv4 internet will
become a relatively small fraction of the total internet in about 15
years.
Owen
Almost every client does have a strong IPv6 bias if they have what
appears to be native connectivity. The bias degrades rapidly with
other forms of host connectivity.
My linux and Mac systems certainly seem to strongly prefer IPv6
Owen
>=20
> In message <B53BEF53-F327-44ED-8F23-A85042E99B3F@delong.com>, Owen =
DeLong write
> s:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> =3D20
>>> In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106060732190.68892@goat.gigo.com>, =
Jason =3D
>> Fesler wr
>>> ites:
>>>>> But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go
>>>>> IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the =3D
>> populace
>>>>> can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start =3D=>> calling
>>>>> and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs.
>>>> =3D20
>>>> Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the =
web=3D20=3D
>>=20
>>>> sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be =
even=3D20
>>>> remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial =
=3D
>> at=3D20
>>>> $dayjob.
>>> =3D20
>>> IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough =
=3D
>> for
>>> that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 =
only
>>> sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64).
>>=20
>> I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the =3D
>> internet
>> to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles =
=3D
>> (about
>> 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit =
percentage
>> of the future network.
>>=20
>> Owen
>=20
> And without there being a strong IPv6 bias in the clients they will
> continue to use IPv4/IPv6 on a 50/50 basis. I would be quite happy
> to be proven wrong and only time will tell.
>=20
Almost every client does have a strong IPv6 bias if they have what
appears to be native connectivity. The bias degrades rapidly with
other forms of host connectivity.My linux and Mac systems certainly seem to strongly prefer IPv6
from my home. YMMV.
Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will
make additional connections.
Cisco just published a report saying that bandwidth will increase 400% by 2015,
That does mean doubling every two years as far as it goes..
j