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 <[email protected]> wrote: >Tell any financial department that 2% does not matter >and see the reaction. >Ed/ >-----Original Message----- >From: Marco Moock via NANOG <[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 14:53 >To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]> >Cc: Marco Moock <[email protected]> >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/[email protected]/message/GQ5AQ75WAWRXFYS54QLFQAUMDGCM4QV4/ >_______________________________________________ >NANOG mailing list >https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/3WJNGJSN3R252QI7CWBDOTAL37LNQFIH/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/ZYNMIDYAXYZMGQJT2VX36DZIEY5XHNYC/
