I have trouble understanding why an ARIN record for a network regularly
receiving new, out-sized IPv4 allocations on the order of millions of
OrgName:Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless
CIDR: 97.128.0.0/9
Comment:Verizon Wireless currently has 44.3 Million
Comment:
On 2/8/09 3:24 AM, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular. It's reasonable to assume
that virtually all cell phones will eventually have an IP address almost
all the time.
The numbers I keep seeing for so-called smartphones in the press for
U.S. and Europe are 49%
Exactly.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
On 2/8/09 3:24 AM, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular. It's reasonable to assume
that virtually all cell phones will eventually have an IP address almost
all
I have no personal knowledge of this situation, so this is wild
speculation.
http://news.cnet.com/verizon-completes-alltel-purchase/
Verizon Wireless is going to be soon selling operations in 105
markets. It may well be that the IP addresses for those markets
will be transfered to the new
Leo Bicknell:
Lastly, you've assumed that only a smart phone (not that the term
is well defined) needs an IP address. I believe this is wrong.
There are plenty of simpler phones (e.g. not a PDA, touch screen,
read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP browse,
or to fetch
2) If one company is likely to need four more /8's, and there are now
32 in the free pool man is IPv4 in trouble.
It's going to happen soon enough anyway.
At this point it
would only take eight companies the size of verizon wireless to
exhaust the free pool WORLDWIDE. No matter
A big thank-you to everyone who replied, called, sent kind words and
shared frustration. Clearly I'm not alone here (even had frustration
shared by people who actually work in a different business unit of
Verizon), and it would be nice if the folks at VZ would take some
steps to fix these
After a few emails traded with David Ulevitch from OpenDNS, it is clear to
me that they do NOT suffer from this issue, and have a work-around. My
apologies to David and to OpenDNS for lumping them in and not doing better
due dilligence when researching this issue.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, TJ
In message alpine.bsf.2.00.0902081439461.72...@nog.angryox.com, Peter Beckman
writes:
After a few emails traded with David Ulevitch from OpenDNS, it is clear to
me that they do NOT suffer from this issue, and have a work-around. My
apologies to David and to OpenDNS for lumping them in
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:45:51 +0100
Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 2/8/09 5:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Lastly, you've assumed that only a smart phone (not that the term
is well defined) needs an IP address. I believe this is wrong.
There are plenty of simpler phones (e.g. not a PDA,
Here's a theoretical solution to this problem that I'd like to open for
discussion.
In each location where a provider hosts their anycasted service, there
is likely a local, non-anycasted IP address for each server.
There should be, yes.
When
receiving a
I didn't know where to jump in in the current discussion and what I wanted
to discuss was quite general, so I thought I'd create a new thread instead.
And the right move, IMHO! (FWIW)
So, anyone saying IPv6 is ready for prime-time whereever IPv4 is used, has
a
very simplified view of the world.
I suppose you can individually configure every host to get itself
temporary addresses from RA announcements. This isn't usually a
good default configuration, but OS implementation already seems to
be inconsistent on the default configuration here. So we're back to
the IPv4 dark ages
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote:
Whatever happened to NAT?
Jeff
NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
speaking-from-assthere should be a FOIA-like method to see large
allocation justifications/ass
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:37 -0800, Aaron Glenn wrote:
NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
speaking-from-assthere should be a FOIA-like method to see large
allocation justifications/ass
Realistically, I suppose Verizon Wireless is big enough to dictate to
the
Does ARIN lack sufficient resources to vet jumbo requests?
I am fairly confident ARIN followed their policies.
The existing policies allow anyone (including Verizon)
to make a request for (and receive) a /9 with appropriate
justification.
If you do not like the policies, please participate
in
In message 1234128761.17985.352.ca...@guardian.inconcepts.net, Jeff S Wheeler
writes:
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:37 -0800, Aaron Glenn wrote:
NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
speaking-from-assthere should be a FOIA-like method to see large
allocation
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org wrote:
I don't see any reason to complain based on those numbers.
It's just a extremely high growth period due to technology
change over bring in new functionality.
so if they don't deploy IPv6 then
This discussion about smartphones and the like was presuming that those
devices all received public IPs -- my experience has been more often than
not that they get RFC 1918 addresses.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:s...@cs.columbia.edu]
Sent: Sunday, February
On Feb 8, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Aaron Glenn wrote:
so if they don't deploy IPv6 then ('extremely high growth period'),
when will they?
Hint: how many of the (say) Alexa top 1000 websites are IPv6 enabled?
Regards,
-drc
For better or worse, Verizon hands out globally routable addresses for
smartphones. (Certainly, the one I've got has one.) They seem to come from
the same pool as data card links.
Note that I suspect that there's a nontrivial number of folk that are used to
using some not quite really NAT
I think that you've got a bit of a logic fault here. You seem to be assuming
that because you can't find any external any sign of Verizon preparing for
IPv6, that they're definitely not doing so.
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't (your -guess- is as good as mine), but that
process is not
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Aaron Glenn aaron.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
speaking-from-assthere should be a FOIA-like method to see large
allocation justifications/ass
Probably because Verizon Business isn't using it, unless you
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
What services require an IP, whether they can be supplied via NAT, how
soon smart phone adoption will bring IP to every handset ... all these
are good and valid points. However, they all distract from the glaring
and
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Paul Wall pauldotw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Aaron Glenn aaron.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
speaking-from-assthere should be a FOIA-like method to see large
allocation
David Conrad wrote:
On Feb 8, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Aaron Glenn wrote:
so if they don't deploy IPv6 then ('extremely high growth period'),
when will they?
Hint: how many of the (say) Alexa top 1000 websites are IPv6 enabled?
haha, I went insane for a moment and though you said Freenix top
This post to the NANOG list in the hope that an interested
engineer from either Qwest or GBLX will act on the problem
I have observed.
I've identified a packet loss problem (10-15%) between Qwest
and Global Crossing. From one end (HP), the partial traceroute
is:
traceroute to 68.85.190.221
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:25:40 +0900, Randy Bush said:
snip
Not quite..
2^96 = 79228162514264337593543950336
2^128-2^32 = 340282366920938463463374607427473244160
not quite. let's posit 42 devices on the average lan segment
(ymmv).
42*(2^64) =
I hate to interrupt the IPv6 and RFC 1918 mega-threads...
Does anyone know of a company that makes 208v (3-wire line-line ground,
no neutral, 208v loads only, single phase) 30-60 amp automatic transfer
switches with sub-30ms switching time? APC used to make the SU045X163
30A model, but it seems
Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Owned by an ISP? It isn't much different than it is now.
As long as you are multi-homed you can get a small allocation (/48),
APNIC and ARIN have procedures for this.
Yes, you have to pay for it, but the addresses will be yours, unlike
the RFC1918 ranges which is
Seth Mattinen wrote:
I hate to interrupt the IPv6 and RFC 1918 mega-threads...
Does anyone know of a company that makes 208v (3-wire line-line ground,
no neutral, 208v loads only, single phase) 30-60 amp automatic transfer
switches with sub-30ms switching time? APC used to make the SU045X163
31 matches
Mail list logo
