2023-05-22 15:06:27 +12:00
|
|
|
## Energy consumption
|
|
|
|
|
2023-07-19 14:49:00 +12:00
|
|
|
There is no firm evidence whether IPv6 has net energy consumption
|
|
|
|
greater or less than IPv4 for the same application layer traffic load.
|
|
|
|
There are factors that might work in favour of IPv6, such as a larger
|
|
|
|
minimum PDU size or less energy spent on network address translation,
|
|
|
|
and factors that might work against it, such as the transmission time
|
|
|
|
for longer packet headers or greater use of link-local multicast.
|
|
|
|
Equally, there is no evidence whether different co-existence strategies
|
|
|
|
(e.g., native dual stack versus IPv4-as-a-service) have significantly
|
|
|
|
different energy costs.
|
2023-05-22 15:06:27 +12:00
|
|
|
|
2023-07-19 14:49:00 +12:00
|
|
|
[BCP202](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp202) makes specific
|
|
|
|
recommendations on reducing the energy consumption of IPv6 Router
|
|
|
|
Advertisements.
|
2023-05-22 15:06:27 +12:00
|
|
|
|
2023-07-19 14:49:00 +12:00
|
|
|
It is worth noting that in the area of constrained IPv6 nodes with very
|
|
|
|
limited battery power and transmission capacity
|
|
|
|
\[[RFC8376](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8376)\], considerable
|
|
|
|
attention has been paid to energy consumption, including compression
|
|
|
|
mechanisms such as Generic Framework for Static Context Header
|
|
|
|
Compression and Fragmentation (SCHC)
|
|
|
|
\[[RFC8724](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8724)\].
|
2023-05-22 15:06:27 +12:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Link lines generated automatically; do not delete -->
|
2023-07-19 14:49:00 +12:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-02 16:38:38 +12:00
|
|
|
### [<ins>Previous</ins>](Multi-prefix%20operation.md) [<ins>Next</ins>](Basic%20Windows%20commands.md) [<ins>Chapter Contents</ins>](6.%20Management%20and%20Operations.md)
|