Last week I have got my hands on the “IPv6 Adoption Monitor” , courtesy to the University of Pennsylvania.
After a relatively trouble free configuration I’ve successfully got it working. I decided I will share the results of the first scan. Similar monitors are currently run at least by the UPenn itself and Comcast
The figures are self explanatory, so I will not focus a lot on description.
First thing to mention is that even amidst the almost full IPv4 starvation, content providers are still surprisingly calm or just careless. This is the only way to explain why at this point, from a top 1 Million, less than 1% of sites are accessible over v6. With that in mind, incapacity of service providers to give public IPv4 to their end users is now starting to look more real then ever. As long as content comes that slow, expect trouble.
(Note: at the end of the post I have described an interesting issue that requires further investigation)
So, here is the first shot:
The second shot is the IPv4 vs IPv6 content download time. This one is especially interesting by the fact that it gives a glimpse on how different the user experience might be when using one protocol versus the other. Though, the first presented shot was somehow what I expected to see, the one below was not. The point is, that according to the graph, both protocols are served decently well and the download times are mostly in the same range for both IPv4 and IPv6.
A short conclusion from the above. We badly need IPv6 content, and failure to bring it online is bad for users, providers and especially content owners. And no, you can not complain on bad connectivity. It is simply not that true anymore.
Note: An interesting thing I have noticed is that during my first scan, only 1400 sites where detected as IPv6 capable. Comcast monitor shows double that number, and UPenn is reporting something around 7000. So, things require some further tuning and clarification. I hope I will be back with better data in the coming months.