Danny,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 01:15:07PM -0700, Danny McPherson wrote:
On Nov 11, 2008, at 11:57 AM, David Kessens wrote:
It seems that arbornetworks estimates are extremely low to the point
where one has to ask whether there were other issues that caused such
a low estimate.
No, the methodology is outlined in the referenced report.
Given what we were measures and what data was supplied, those
were the results.
The report as presented at the RIPE meeting indeed mentions the
possibility of undercounting. However, it appears that there is an
undercount of several orders of magnitude. At that point you really
cannot claim that the report provides a perspective on Internet IPv6
traffic as it does. It is quite reasonable to conclude that something
went wrong with the methodology, measurements or analysis.
There is no question that IPv6 traffic is quite low in the Internet.
However, many other reports that I have seen recently measure multiple
orders of magnitude more IPv6 traffic (for an easily accesible example
see: http://www.ams-ix.net/technical/stats/sflow/)
Indeed, and multiple orders (less than two) of magnitude is still,
from this, only .1% on average. I believe the point remains very
much the same.
The difference between something that is barely measurable and
something small but measurable like 0.1% is huge. Basically, 0.1% on
the scale of the Internet means that a very large group of people is
using IPv6 today. There is no question that that group pales to the
total number of Internet users but it sure is more than a few people
in IETF experimenting with IPv6.
David Kessens
---
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf