Exactly, I recall a study from Nokia, many years ago, demonstrating that the use of NAT is terrible in terms of energy consumption. That was especially relevant in cellular phones, but if you add the thousands of millions of NAT boxes ...
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 22/11/21 22:32, "ietf en nombre de Brian E Carpenter" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx en nombre de brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> escribió:
On 23-Nov-21 08:19, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> John Levine wrote on 22/11/2021 18:50:
>> But does anyone have any idea what this "report' might be?
>
> draft-petrescu-v6ops-ipv6-power-ipv4?
>
> The methodology raises questions about whether the results are reliable
> enough to be quoted.
Regardless of that, it's far from clear that even if those results were valid in 2017 that they are still valid today, and how they relate to total power consumption, because for all I know base stations use 10% less power for IPv6 and core routers use 12.5% less. Warren, shall I write a draft raising those hypotheses?
How much power is being wasted at this moment by domestic NATs and CGN boxes?
Brian
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
