Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing)

[Lukasz Bromirski via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Hi,

> On 2 Dec 2025, at 23:54, Bryan Fields via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> On 12/2/25 3:57 PM, Matthew Petach via NANOG wrote:
> > So, if we limit packets to a constant small size, say 53 bytes, we'd have
> > faster connections, right?
> >
> > I think we should make a proposal for a new internet standard--this would
> > help speed up network connections for everyone!
> >
> > Now we just need a catchy name for the new standard packet size...something
> > like "Accelerated Transfer Methodology" that the trade publications can
> > splash across the headlines in 18 point type.
>
> I've heard ATM defined as something else..
>
> ATM didn't die, it just moved internal to the routing chipsets :-)

Oh yes, of course. Some vendors still use 64 byte internal cells
to transport your traffic internally in their fabrics. But hey, it's
improvement from 53 bytes, full 11 bytes of additional fun, signals
and bitfields we can use. Or payload. Or variable-length encoded TLVs...

-- 
./
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/H52QKQBL6U4L6STD4QGWBVGAZAC2PWM4/