I am not trying to make any speculation here. If user needs to transmit 320kB (average Web page) or 4GB video, then additional overhead would slow down the transmission. (all other things equal, for the typical or average b your choice)
The right message could be “IPv6 is fundamentally slower than IPv4 because of bigger headers, but we need to tolerate it because everybody should have the equal rights to be connected to the Internet. IPv4 has twice smaller address space then the number of people on the planet.” Ed/ From: Matthew Petach <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 23:58 To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]> Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]> Subject: Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 11:09 PM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Fundamentally, IPv6 should be slower because of the bigger headers/overhead. You know, you might just be onto something there. If we just made *all* the packets smaller, we'd have less latency, right? So, if we limit packets to a constant small size, say 53 bytes, we'd have faster connections, right? I think we should make a proposal for a new internet standard--this would help speed up network connections for *everyone*! Now we just need a catchy name for the new standard packet size...something like "Accelerated Transfer Methodology" that the trade publications can splash across the headlines in 18 point type. I don't know why nobody thought of this before! Matt _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/DNC2FSIOO23RBX5HXL2UP3YUXZ5X6ZTT/
