I said what I meant to say. "less than 98% as much" is the same thing as "savings greater than 2%". Perhaps those who call others "internet trolls" should reconsider whether their own behaviour is trolling. In the modern online environment, it is unwise to expose personal information needlessly. I could have used a realistic randomly chosen pseudonym, but I felt it would add no value. Technical content should be evaluated based on its merit, not based on the name attached to it. Though it's regrettable the new mailing list software also makes it hard to see the sender's address. On 7 November 2025 18:53:38 CET, Gary Sparkes via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
On eyeball networks here, we're seeing about 60-70% native IPv6 traffic.
Definitely on the services (IE hosted/provided services, not network services) side, It's a mix, but around 50-60%.
Mind you, I deal primarily with US facing infrastructure (provider and eyeball) only.
In terms of NAT load, that's meant an actual reduction in hardware footprint, via things like edge CPU and RAM usage, etc.
Less power, less hardware, less expense - with better throughput overall per amount of hardware, to boot - without having to over-size hardware to compensate.
So while I think they meant to say uses more than 2% less, it definitely has been *far more* than 2% savings for us (my org, other orgs I'm involved with, etc), just via NAT reduction. Other simplification benefits for deployment/design have also netted savings.
The added benefit of a lot of things just working, and working more reliably, is a bonus, as well.
-----Original Message----- From: A B via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Friday, November 7, 2025 11:25 AM To: nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: A B <ab.nanog@loopw.com> Subject: Re: my finance department cares deeply about 2%
On Thu, 06 Nov 2025 18:58:10 +0100 nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
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.
NAT is definitely not "computation-hungry" anymore - In many modern stacks there's hardly any penalty for NAT vs not. And by modern I mean "almost anything written after the mid 1990s"
"uses less than 98% as much electricity" so it uses 97% as much as ipv4? At 1500 MTU? Does that at all sound right to anyone? "Hey we increased the header so you get reduced data payload, thus taking more packets to do the same work" doesnt really sound like an electrical savings to me.
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/BSXRE26I... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/HBDDZZPC...