Why not IPv6 yet (Re: IPv6 traffic data in Asian networks?)

[Nick Hilliard]

>> I don't treat it as a toy part of the network.  As an IX operator, I'm 
>> contractually bound to ensure that it works as well as ipv4 (which, 
>> incidentally, is impossible given current C65k layer 2 support for v6).
> 
> L2 ?

Yes, L2.  The main problems are related to mld snooping, which must be 
disabled, becaue it just doesn't appear to work properly, even on the 
latest versions of SXE and SXF.  Even with this disabled, we are seeing 
serious ipv6 link-local reachability problems.

>> And as an IX operator, I have a pretty good idea about how much native 
>> ipv6 traffic passes over INEX.  Sadly, now that my office NTP server 
>> no longer uses ipv6, v6 traffic levels have decreased substantially.
> 
> any special reason? :-)

That my office doesn't use ipv6 any more?  I changed DSL providers to an 
LLU provider, which doesn't support native ipv6.  Not that the previous 
provider did native v6 either - I had a tunnel to them, but to be quite 
honest, I just don't see the point these days of getting tunnelled 
connectivity.  If my current provider starts doing ipv6 over dsl, I'll be 
one of the first to start using it.

But it was just sobering and rather pathetic to see that ntp traffic from 
my office box to three local ntp servers constituted about 30% - 40% of the 
v6 traffic on the exchange [note: outside nntp traffic].

>> This isn't a unique experience; if you strip out v6 usenet newsfeeds 
>> at AMS-IX, you'll see a proportionally dispiriting level of v6 
>> traffic.  In my humble opinion, this indicates that there is no 
>> commercial requirement for ipv6, but feel free to disagree.
> 
> i don't really understand why should we really strip out.

Because AMS-IX's ipv6 nntp traffic is substantially associated with 
xs4all's nntp servers.  If you were to remove them - a single provider - 
their ipv6 traffic levels would drop to a small fraction of what it is today.

Nick