* Cameron Byrne
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next generation technology ...
Yesterday, Telenor launched LTE.
So. With a green-field deployment, in their home market (supposed to be
the first of their tree-digit million subscribers world-wide to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
So. With a green-field deployment, in their home market (supposed to be
the first of their tree-digit million subscribers world-wide to get all
the cool new tech), built on 3GPP specs that fully supports IPv6,
already proven to work by other pioneers
https://intelligence.businessinsider.com/facebook-is-adding-over-25000-mobile-users-an-hour-2012-10
dream big
/bill
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:31:44AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Cameron Byrne
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next
* Mikael Abrahamsson
Would you want to get IPv6 when you're in the LTE network but lose it
when you were handed over to 2G/3G.
Absolutely.
That some features are available only on the most advanced access
technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not,
what's the point of
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
That some features are available only on the most advanced access
technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not,
what's the point of upgrading at all?
Uh, whut? I expect my ssh sessions to survive a 4G-3G handover, and if
they
On 10/11/2012 8:44 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
That some features are available only on the most advanced access
technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not,
what's the point of upgrading at all?
Uh, whut? I expect my ssh
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
If your SSH sessions could survive a change in address assignment (which
often happens in a handover), they could survive a change in address
family assignment as well.
Why would there be an address change in a handover? That is definitely not
Why do you believe that address changes in handover? It's an integral part
of 3GPP standard that your existing bearer is used for handover, so your
address shouldn't change. If it changes then it means the handover didn't
work as designed, probably due to some radio related problem. If the
* Mikael Abrahamsson
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
That some features are available only on the most advanced access
technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not,
what's the point of upgrading at all?
Uh, whut? I expect my ssh sessions to survive a
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Bryan Tong wrote:
Why do you believe that address changes in handover? It's an integral part
of 3GPP standard that your existing bearer is used for handover, so your
address shouldn't change. If it changes then it means the handover didn't
work as designed, probably due to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Mikael Abrahamsson
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
That some features are available only on the most advanced access
technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not,
what's the point of upgrading at all?
Uh, whut? I
* Mikael Abrahamsson
In my experience, long-lived sessions are unreliable when you're on the
move anyway. Go into an elevator? Sessions drop. Subway heads into a
tunnel? Sessions drop.
I guess you and me have radically different experience of mobile phone
networks and how well they work.
Subscription only, $199/year (special introductory offer, normally $499!).
Try it free for two weeks but only if you cough up info.
How about a summary for those of us who are disinclined to do either?
-r
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes:
* Tore Anderson (tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com) wrote:
* Mikael Abrahamsson
In my experience, long-lived sessions are unreliable when you're on the
move anyway. Go into an elevator? Sessions drop. Subway heads into a
tunnel? Sessions drop.
I guess you and me have radically
It is not about security. It is about finding enough bits to service 7 digits
number of subs.
yi
-Original Message-
From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobb...@arbor.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:19 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space
list
Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
No, reusing somebody's prefix is A Very Bad Idea.
Concur 100%. There is no security value to doing this whatsoever - quite the
opposite, given the possible negative
On 7/18/12 6:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
So some comments on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's
unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference
that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there?
The arpanet prefix(10/8) was returned to
On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
No, reusing somebody's prefix is A Very Bad Idea.
Concur 100%. There is no security value to doing this whatsoever - quite the
opposite, given the possible negative consequences to reachability and, thus,
availability.
Subject: RE: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Date:
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36:31PM -0400 Quoting Chuck Church
(chuckchu...@gmail.com):
I disagree. I see it as an extra layer of security. If DOD had a network
with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36:31PM -0400, Chuck Church wrote:
I disagree. I see it as an extra layer of security. If DOD had a network
with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised to the outside. It
never interacts with public network. Having it duplicated on the outside
So some comments on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's
unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference
that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there?
--Andrey
Even if they did OK it (which i doubt), actually using it - especially in a
public/customer facing / visible deployment - is a Bad Idea.
*Traceability fail and possibly creating unreachable networks out there ...*
/TJ
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov
khomyakov.and...@gmail.com
I am on sprint and my ip is always in the 20. net even though my wan up is
totally different.
Grant
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012, TJ wrote:
Even if they did OK it (which i doubt), actually using it - especially in a
public/customer facing / visible deployment - is a Bad Idea.
*Traceability
Cc: Nanog
Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
Even if they did OK it (which i doubt), actually using it - especially in a
public/customer facing / visible deployment - is a Bad Idea.
*Traceability fail and possibly creating unreachable networks out
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next generation technology ...
CB
On Jul 17, 2012 7:54 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next generation technology ...
No IPv6, and using duplicate IPv4 space. #sigh #fail
/TJ
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote:
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
Short-sighted and foolish. Shame on you, Sprint.
jms
27 matches
Mail list logo
