Business could stay IPv4 only. They would probably do because IPv6 is a too big headache. I do not believe dual stack is a big problem because it would be just on the OTT side and Telco. If any business would implement dual stack - it would be there personal problem. Eduard > -----Original Message----- > From: Saku Ytti <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2025 10:51 > To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]> > Cc: Tom Beecher <[email protected]>; Vasilenko Eduard > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: my finance department cares deeply about 2% > > 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 > <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, November 7, 2025 19:10 > > To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]> > > Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]> > > 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 > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 20:58 > > To: North American Network Operators Group > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > 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 > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > >>Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 14:53 > > >>To: North American Network Operators Group > > >><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > >>Cc: Marco Moock <[email protected]<mailto:[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/ > > >>GQ > > >>5AQ75WAWRXFYS54QLFQAUMDGCM4QV4/ > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>NANOG mailing list > > >>https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/ > > >>3W > > >>JNGJSN3R252QI7CWBDOTAL37LNQFIH/ > > >_______________________________________________ > > >NANOG mailing list > > >https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/Z > > >YN > > >MIDYAXYZMGQJT2VX36DZIEY5XHNYC/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/EI > > 7EM7BXCFKDS3WR7HNRLREHECTMUCR7/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/P4 > > 7JM32L2IYAYYSHNGVBRQFWEIMTEFYQ/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/CN > > KQ7DSVH56SSZA53OA5ELOAJCY4DAO2/ > > > > -- > ++ytti
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/X7VGWYH3YL4HY32N4VQLN6LYRZPJKX7J/
