If you build it, they will come

by Leo Vegoda on August 25, 2010

As you would expect, most of ICANN’s external services, including this blog, are available over IPv6 as well as IPv4. And at the request of the ICANN Board, a regular comparative measure of IPv6 use at the ICANN and IANA websites has been provided to them for months.  The good news is that the trend from the measurement shows an increase in the use of the ICANN and IANA web sites using IPv6. IPv6 hits on our web sites in June were about 1.7% of all hits.

The peaks in IPv6 access, which is shown in red on the graph, closely correlate with ICANN meetings. IPv6 connectivity is provided as standard at ICANN meetings and lots of meeting attendees have been using it without knowing while using the free WiFi.

So, as the graph shows, we have had peaks in IPv6 access alongside the October 2009 ICANN meeting in Seoul, the March 2010 ICANN meeting in Nairobi and June’s ICANN meeting in Brussels. There was also a peak in January 2010, which we believe is associated with the IANA Business Continuity Exercise that took place on the 19th of January, thus users were preferring the IPv6 transport while IPv4 provision was in flux.

What is perhaps more heartening than the peaks associated with the ICANN meetings, is that the troughs in April and May 2010 are far less shallow than those seen in December 2009 and February 2010. There is growth in IPv6 traffic! While at the start of the process we had to use a magnifying lens to see the changes, they are definitely becoming more obvious.

ICANN will continue to assess the adoption of IPv6 worldwide and make reports at regular intervals. ICANN also encourages all organizations to make sure they are – or will be – implementing IPv6 on their networks.

{ 5 comments }

Jim Fleming 08.26.10 at 8:01 am

1. If one really wanted to fracture the Internet, they would encourage more movement to Native IPv6. It is like moving people from New York to Montana.

2. Your statistics do not likely show IPv6 usage that results in IPv4 Proxy access to legacy (out-dated) sites.

3. It is really hard for anyone to measure IPv6 traffic on networks that they do not access or can not access. As an example, a major software company claims they use “IPv6″ (their flavor) on their IntraNet.

4. Since there is no substantial Native IPv6 transports, most traffic results in being “tunneled” via IPv4 or some transport. That makes IPv6 just one of many “tunnel tricks”. It may not prove to be the best one or the one that the market place adopts.

5. With tunnels (#4) the lowers level could be Modern IEEE 802.1Q Tagged VLANs. If that becomes wide-spread, there is less reason for IPv6 because one gets expanded addressing and MPLS-like features. They also get a professional IEEE Standards body, with real engineers. Those engineers have likely graduated from high-school AND college.

6. IPv4 still has a lot of life. There are 160-bits being delivered in the basic header. Only 64 of those bits are mainly used for routing. It is trivial to expand the addressing of IPv4 for decades. The IPv6 basic header is 320 bits and that does not play well in third-world countries where bandwidth to the Big.Island is very expensive.

7. With Virtualized IPv* the emphasis shifts to “Services”. Users mostly care about Services, not the protocol being used. They also care about costs and paying million dollar salaries to people camped in non-profit NGOs.

chris 09.27.10 at 4:37 am

Thats probably because of windows7s autoipv6 setup what the users dont even know about.

Only kids use ipv6 for irc and now even irc is out of fashion. You keep fooling yourself and others by saying ipv6 widely used and useful. Its not true.

Leo Vegoda 10.11.10 at 7:30 am

In response to your comment we went and had a look at the logs of July and August 2010 and found that automatic tunnel mechanisms were in fact a very small proportion of the traffic our web sites received over IPv6. In both months, native IPv6 traffic was more than 85% of all IPv6 traffic received with 6to4 filling the balance as there was no Teredo traffic in either month.

I understand that this is quite normal as APNIC staff have reported similar traffic proportions from their measurements.

Jim Fleming 11.03.10 at 2:22 pm

1. If one really wanted to fracture the Internet, they would encourage more movement to Native IPv6. It is like moving people from New York to Montana.

2. Your statistics do not likely show IPv6 usage that results in IPv4 Proxy access to legacy (out-dated) sites.

3. It is really hard for anyone to measure IPv6 traffic on networks that they do not access or can not access. As an example, a major software company claims they use “IPv6″ (their flavor) on their IntraNet.

4. Since there is no substantial Native IPv6 transports, most traffic results in being “tunneled” via IPv4 or some transport. That makes IPv6 just one of many “tunnel tricks”. It may not prove to be the best one or the one that the market place adopts.

5. With tunnels (#4) the lowers level could be Modern IEEE 802.1Q Tagged VLANs. If that becomes wide-spread, there is less reason for IPv6 because one gets expanded addressing and MPLS-like features. They also get a professional IEEE Standards body, with real engineers. Those engineers have likely graduated from high-school AND college.

6. IPv4 still has a lot of life. There are 160-bits being delivered in the basic header. Only 64 of those bits are mainly used for routing. It is trivial to expand the addressing of IPv4 for decades. The IPv6 basic header is 320 bits and that does not play well in third-world countries where bandwidth to the Big.Island is very expensive.

7. With Virtualized IPv* the emphasis shifts to “Services”. Users mostly care about Services, not the protocol being used. They also care about costs and paying million dollar salaries to people camped in non-profit NGOs.

Jim Fleming 11.08.10 at 9:01 pm

Comments on this entry are closed.