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 8:51 AM, Saku Ytti via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:

We can discuss ideal optimisation points, but we cannot reasonably
change anything.

What we can do, if there is actual desire and realisation of the
problem, is to move into IPv6 single stack. No matter how poor IPv6
is, IPv6+IPv4 is worse. So the least bad option on the table is IPv6
only[0] world. But if we keep focusing on how much of youtube is IPv6,
we're never going to get to IPv6 single stack, the path to IPv6 single
stack isn't of gradual increase of content network IPv6 share.
Currently there is absolutely no serious work being done towards ever
being IPv6 only. We could also argue that many stakeholders might
unintentionally or intentionally want this situation, as they have
bought a large amount of IPv4 addresses, which they can a) monetise
and b) use to stop competition from entering the market, and these are
the same stakeholders who would be most able to force IPv6 only DFZ.


[0] long tail is long, surely there will be bunch of edges which are
IPv4, but I mean DFZ free IPv4

On Mon, 10 Nov 2025 at 09:40, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
<nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:

Hi Tom,
You did not read the full thread.
32->64bit address size increase is justified – it is needed anyway. No argue on that point. And yes, it is 2% cost for 
the whole Internet.
Additional 64 bits were wasted not for addressing. Source+Destination – it is 16 bytes wasted for nothing. 
16/750=2.13%. 750B is very often reported average packet size.


 *   the application developers that pull 1GB of data over the network when they really only need about 200KB for the 
thing they are doing
It is not a good logic: If somebody is doing wrong, then everybody could do wrong too.
Eduard
From: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2025 19:10
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
Subject: Re: my finance department cares deeply about 2%

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<mailto: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<mailto:nanog () lists nanog org>>
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 20:58
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org<mailto:nanog () lists nanog org>>
Cc: nanog () immibis com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:nanog () lists nanog org>>
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 14:53
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org<mailto:nanog () lists nanog org>>
Cc: Marco Moock <mm () dorfdsl de<mailto: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 () lists nanog 
org/message/GQ__;!!PtGJab4!8J2PiwP_8LbFqAcgREWK2oXv1e-KsBgc2U06KIV3zt97PbCwH4nrAwGIIp_yu832t1H6TdgqlaR6YNkeoqMv2E4b5Lg$ 
[lists[.]nanog[.]org]
5AQ75WAWRXFYS54QLFQAUMDGCM4QV4/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog 
org/message/3W__;!!PtGJab4!8J2PiwP_8LbFqAcgREWK2oXv1e-KsBgc2U06KIV3zt97PbCwH4nrAwGIIp_yu832t1H6TdgqlaR6YNkeoqMv-056Hsw$ 
[lists[.]nanog[.]org]
JNGJSN3R252QI7CWBDOTAL37LNQFIH/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog 
org/message/ZYN__;!!PtGJab4!8J2PiwP_8LbFqAcgREWK2oXv1e-KsBgc2U06KIV3zt97PbCwH4nrAwGIIp_yu832t1H6TdgqlaR6YNkeoqMvK3jDtEI$
 [lists[.]nanog[.]org]
MIDYAXYZMGQJT2VX36DZIEY5XHNYC/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog 
org/message/EI7EM7BXCFKDS3WR7HNRLREHECTMUCR7/__;!!PtGJab4!8J2PiwP_8LbFqAcgREWK2oXv1e-KsBgc2U06KIV3zt97PbCwH4nrAwGIIp_yu832t1H6TdgqlaR6YNkeoqMvKeG8GXs$
 [lists[.]nanog[.]org]
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog 
org/message/P47JM32L2IYAYYSHNGVBRQFWEIMTEFYQ/__;!!PtGJab4!8J2PiwP_8LbFqAcgREWK2oXv1e-KsBgc2U06KIV3zt97PbCwH4nrAwGIIp_yu832t1H6TdgqlaR6YNkeoqMv1zGhLko$
 [lists[.]nanog[.]org]
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog 
org/message/CNKQ7DSVH56SSZA53OA5ELOAJCY4DAO2/__;!!PtGJab4!8J2PiwP_8LbFqAcgREWK2oXv1e-KsBgc2U06KIV3zt97PbCwH4nrAwGIIp_yu832t1H6TdgqlaR6YNkeoqMviofUsr8$
 [lists[.]nanog[.]org]



--
 ++ytti
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog 
org/message/FPSD7YHKCHUNIZRSLKCSZMPNJRNHXADF/__;!!PtGJab4!8J2PiwP_8LbFqAcgREWK2oXv1e-KsBgc2U06KIV3zt97PbCwH4nrAwGIIp_yu832t1H6TdgqlaR6YNkeoqMvk6Oy4JQ$
 [lists[.]nanog[.]org]
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/NEKOOIKRFSB5ZKP4UKFMQRPWMP5MJCG5/