Re: Re: RE: [Ext] my finance department cares deeply about 2%

[Samaneh Tajalizadehkhoob via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

I am not checking my emails until Nov 14th, 2025. Thanks, Samaneh

On Nov 10, 2025, at 1:06 PM, Samaneh Tajalizadehkhoob via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:

I am not checking my emails until Nov 14th, 2025. Thanks, Samaneh

On Nov 7, 2025, at 6:53 PM, 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog 
org/message/BSXRE26I7YTQVM6TVEVLZPODVYZYAJV5/__;!!PtGJab4!5HAL_SMSN-rHBQPOJiAR1na5Vgroq6iveE6Ln0x_2vckOSlt7u26v1YLLFl7jIb0cPXvZEIuZ3sRW2lCpTykaARgxRs$
 [lists[.]nanog[.]org]
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog 
org/message/HBDDZZPC5B2D5NM464E4GVCQLHX7X3N4/__;!!PtGJab4!5HAL_SMSN-rHBQPOJiAR1na5Vgroq6iveE6Ln0x_2vckOSlt7u26v1YLLFl7jIb0cPXvZEIuZ3sRW2lCpTykCIf3L_g$
 [lists[.]nanog[.]org]
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog 
org/message/K6MUUY7LTJ3Q4RVW7CLXIL5BYMKYSNAA/__;!!PtGJab4!4CuHKjswSslmSk9V8mVavnUmTy96Dgy6TD5s1NU0LZ2Z8CYEGuidf-x_5LQiDk_M0HmzbZUtpk8W9eycKnbBJuIuoo4$
 [lists[.]nanog[.]org]
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/UBEPZH3CWLXD5F3JHSKF2PXSQ3AFYMK7/