On Nov 12,
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.
Nothing is wrong in the methodology and the places where undercounting likely occurred (namely: flow types supported by exporting routers, Teredo data channels, etc..) have been identified. Caveat-aware, I believe the report to be both very quantitive and qualitative. Furthermore, what we measured is what the ISPs involve have visibility to, which is a critical consideration - if you can't see it, and can't measure it, then you certainly can't qualify it. If you have any more *quantitative* and qualitative studies that you can point to I and many others would be quite interested.
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.
That's great news, and I look forwarding to seeing more data from this large group of people... To be clear, our attempt with this study was to measure observable IPv6 traffic in production networks across a large number of production ISP networks. It was not to discredit IPv6 in any way, quite the contrary. I look forward to any credible data that you can provide to support wider adoption, or being made aware of any unacknowledged issues with our methodology. -danny _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf