Yes, but also No: the point here is that S-K telecom say they have fantastic IPv6 penetration and market share, but we can't show it as IPv6 capable from probes in clients. There is a story about V6 in Korea which is about the early broadband adoption: they went with whitebox FTTP to the huge housing estates and the whitebox CPE can't do V6, nor can the in-ground switching fabric behind it. So, Korea overall will have to wait for the initial broadband investment to age out. (probably on the next 5-10 year window)

This problem, the mis-measure is probably about KR transit wierdness, and how we "see" viable IPv6 they may well have but how it exposes as end-to-end isn't good. Its a very odd market. Dacom/Boranet has done some de-peering at times, forcing domestic flows offshore, all kinds of wierdness in their market.

(yes, the point I was making is that 4 independent V6 deployment measures outside of the economy say the same figure for the economy, but domestic strategic planners are told by the ISPs they have far more IPv6 than we all see. Because we are independent but see the same approx 14%, I don't think we are making a mistake. Whats going on isn't clear to me)