Also, it has a simpler checksum to calculate and a far simpler header. The header is larger but has far less fields. This should make packet processing faster aswell.
Also, MTU path-discovery is a pretty big deal in terms of performance, as IPV6 does not allow packet fragmentation. Which should improve performance aswell.
Re:Blockers to IPv6 Adoption
by AmericanChopper on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @06:13AM
(#17345240)
But I like NAT. I don’t want to spark a ‘NAT is not a firewall’ debate, but it solves many security and privacy issues with little overhead, and does so in an incredibly simple and elegant way. Having the private LAN as a trusted network zone makes perfect sense, and for home users is works perfectly well with 0 configuration. Remove it and you’re giving every single device a globally unique L3 identifier (no fucking thank you), and to get the same benefits that NAT provides you’ll have to replace it with an unavoidably more complex solution.
The specs on the router claimed that the highest speeds could be reached with ipv6 support because you could then avoid the overhead of nat for your ipv4 addresses. So that may be what they are referring to. Nat does create overhead.