RE: my finance department cares deeply about 2%

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

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://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/GQ
> > 5AQ75WAWRXFYS54QLFQAUMDGCM4QV4/ 
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/3W
> > JNGJSN3R252QI7CWBDOTAL37LNQFIH/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/ZYN
> MIDYAXYZMGQJT2VX36DZIEY5XHNYC/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/EI7EM7BXCFKDS3WR7HNRLREHECTMUCR7/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/P47JM32L2IYAYYSHNGVBRQFWEIMTEFYQ/