[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:02:27PM +0000, Michel Py wrote:
> Do you measure what is happening on private interconnects ? MMR
> traffic ? 

Yes, looking at stats at NTT (a network which basically is only private
interconnects), I see a similar pattern as we observe at AMS-IX. I'll
see what detalis I can share.

It would be nice if more players would share a normalised overview of
IPv4 vs IPv6 percentages, just like AMS-IX does.

> I would guess that a good part of the IPv6 traffic is between large
> players, and that somehow they may have changed their peering scheme ?

I find it hard to believe that two networks would end up exchanging IPv6
traffic over private connections, and at the same time keep IPv4 traffic
on public IXPs or transit. That doesn't seem to align with the usual
economic or security drivers behind peering. Ofcourse we can't exclude
the possiblity this happens, but I am not aware of anyone who explicitly
configured things to be that way.

I'm beginning to suspect that the "there is lots of IPv6 traffic!" some
folks report on is mostly between handsets (strictly controlled by the
mobile provider) and a select few Big Content on-net cache devices. Even
if we consider such an intranet IPv6 deployment part of the big-I
Internet, it doesn't strike me as healthy.

I posit: the further an IP packet has to travel, the less likely it is
to be an IPv6 packet.

Kind regards,

Job