NB: this is not "IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark" but "availability of IPv6 connectivity among Google users", which is a very important difference. This means roughly half of Google users have IPv6 capability, which does not 1:1 correspond how much traffic is actually transferred over IPv6, which is what this submission says in the title.
Yeah and this distinction explains the fact that because China's Great Firewall blocks Google, this website shows 4.66% adoption as a reflection of that. I think China's IPv6 support rate is actually much higher than that, maybe a little over 50% because of its central initiative to increase IPv6 adoption?
For inbound traffic, they're completely fine. This is only looking at the route servers. You can almost certainly receive 50/50 traffic ratios if you do bilateral peering. This post only covers the " automatic peering " services that IXs offer
Kind of "funny" affected service is BGP RouteViews CLI access, still running over telnet: https://archive.routeviews.org/ (scroll to bottom of the page)
Isn't this one of the remaining, "legit" uses of the Telnet protocol on TCP/23 port over the public Internet?
...all of which are (usually) free. IMHO you should have a competing product + money strategy before you continue. Many people have tried (and failed) to make money off BGP.
One reason is there already was exabgp, written in Python, which in my experience is slow and resource hungry. Golang is much faster, easily portable, and produces static binaries (easy to deploy).
Another thing is bgpipe speaks JSON to background (or even remote) packet processors, so basically you can use whatever language you want with it to drive your BGP routers.
reply