I am not checking my emails until Nov 14th, 2025. Thanks, Samaneh On Nov 7, 2025, at 5:10 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: Hence, it is just a wastage of 2% of Internet for nothing. Standard internet MTU = 1500 bytes. IPv4 header is 1.33% of the standard 1500 byte packet size. ( Assuming IHL = 5, so no options, 20B) IPv6 header is 40B, so this becomes 2.67%. ( 1.33% * 2 ) You can of course rant on about how this is 1.33% more "wasted", oh noes! But do you make the same argument to the application developers that pull 1GB of data over the network when they really only need about 200KB for the thing they are doing? How many more 1500B packets are "wasted" there? There are lots of reasonable complaints about things related to IPv6. Complaining that the header is "wasting" bits on the wire is absolutely NOT one of them. On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 1:19 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: It depends on what is the benefit for any expense. For example, encryption cost is high, but there is a motivation that many people would accept (and create the pressure on the financial department to tolerate it). For the case of half IPv6 address bits wastage, it was initially "OSI layer violation to put MAC inside IP address just because some IPX politicians have big enough weight" that was later replaces by "randomize IP address to make more difficult to guess it or scan". Number of people who would support this madness would be very small - OTTs have hundreds of ways to de-anonymize users. Hence, it is just a wastage of 2% of Internet for nothing. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 20:58 To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: nanog@immibis.com Subject: RE: my finance department cares deeply about 2% fun fact I forgot to mention: if you use ipv6 on cellphone connections, your site loads more than 2% faster and uses less than 98% as much electricity, due to avoiding the expensive and computation-hungry NAT process itself, as well as not needing to be physically routed to that big centralised server and back. So if you care about 2%, you'll use IPv6. On 6 November 2025 18:52:07 CET, nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: So you use header compression on all your links, right? No sense reducing your 1Gbps main uplink to 0.98Gbps. The checksum (removed in v6) is already 5% of each IP packet header. Speaking of headers I take it you're using SLIP instead of Ethernet? And you avoid TLS like the plague? I hope you replaced your 15W LED bulbs with 14.7W bulbs as well - your finance department will thank you. This is asinine. On 6 November 2025 13:11:16 CET, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: Tell any financial department that 2% does not matter and see the reaction. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: Marco Moock via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 14:53 To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> Subject: Re: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment (and sales) On 06.11.2025 07:12 Vasilenko Eduard wrote: The issue that 128bits (64+64) are wasted in every packet. Formally, for "privacy". Content providers are lathing from such form or privacy. But it is 2% of the internet capacity. No one cares nowadays. The amount of other crap traffic (scrapers, AI, spam, DDoS attacks) is a real problem, the additional bits in the header aren't. The time of slow dialup connections where every bit matters, is over. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@list... [lists[.]nanog[.]org] 5AQ75WAWRXFYS54QLFQAUMDGCM4QV4/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@list... [lists[.]nanog[.]org] JNGJSN3R252QI7CWBDOTAL37LNQFIH/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@list... [lists[.]nanog[.]org] MIDYAXYZMGQJT2VX36DZIEY5XHNYC/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@list... [lists[.]nanog[.]org] _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@list... [lists[.]nanog[.]org] _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@list... [lists[.]nanog[.]org]