From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of David Kessens
Sent: Wed 11/12/2008 4:28 PM
To: Joe St Sauver
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IPv6 traffic stats (was: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl(DNS Blacklists and Whitelists))
Joe,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:12:53PM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote:
> David mentioned:
>
> On the other hand, just to put this in context and to pick on an
> application I'm somewhat familiar with, a single full-ish Usenet news
> feed is now in excess of 3TByte/day (see the daily volume stats quoted
> at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet ). Just two or three full-ish
> Usenet News feeds over IPv6, if done across AMS-IX, would account
> for most of that 800Mbps traffic load (assuming that Usenet is what
> was making up most of that traffic, an assertion that I'm explictly
> NOT making). My point? It is possible that the IP transport choices
> of just a few cooperating server administrators might (at least
> hypothetically) account for virtually all the observed growth in
> AMS-IX IPv6 traffic.
Very good analysis: rumor has it that a large part of the AMS-IX
traffic is indeed usenet traffic. However, that doesn't mean that it
is not real IPv6 traffic: eg. we don't decide not to count IPv4 Usenet
traffic either. On the other hand, this graph only shows native
traffic so there is most likely more than what is visible in the
graph.
However, there are quite a few other observations by others (also
mentioned on this list) that put the total amount of IPv6 traffic to
various other parts of the Internet at a bit more but in the same
order of magnitude so it doesn't seem that the AMS-IX data is out of
line (various presentations on this topic from the last RIPE
meeting are available on rosie.ripe.net, look for ipv6 working group
or plenary).
> So to bring this post to a close, I continue to believe that IPv6
> traffic, at least IPv6 email traffic, remains very, very low, to
> the point where, as I've previous mentioned, it just hasn't justified
> DNS block list operator attention in any material way (love to hear
> about any counter examples, BTW).
This of course depends a bit on what you define as very, very low.
However, I can certainly see that it is not enough to get the
attention of a DNS block list operator. I do do know however, that I
received my first spam mail over IPv6 several years ago.
The reason for my mail was not to disproof your point but to put the
arbornetworks numbers in a bit more perspective.
David Kessens
---
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf