"This can't mean that all of their v6 traffic is backhauled to NJ, right?" Nah, that would be really lame for performance -- I'm pretty sure they treat V4/V6 equally :-D.
david. On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:29 PM, mike <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > On 12/27/12 9:25 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: >> >> On 12/27/12 9:04 AM, mike wrote: >>> >>> >>> I reloaded their app (yes, I know... sew me) and got this warning: >>> >>> IP address: 2600:100f:b119:c6bc:bd6f:fabb:ff30:2a3d >>> Estimated location: Livingston, NJ, US >> >> That's a rather good estimation of where many verizon wireless customers >> appear to come from. > > > This can't mean that all of their v6 traffic is backhauled to NJ, right? > > >> >>> Which seems pretty bizarre. I'm guessing they must be getting it from >>> whois or something based on the address block for Verizon. The reverse >>> map according to >>> >>> host 2600:100f:b119:c6bc:bd6f:fabb:ff30:2a3d >> >> one assumes they have a an geoip database like they have for ipv4 >>> >>> >>> comes back with NXDOMAIN. I suppose the real issue here is with Vz >>> and why they don't have v6 reverse maps, but it did throw me thinking >>> that >>> somebody in New Jersey might have hacked my account. >> >> Well could certainly wildcard their responses, not sure that dynamic dns >> updates would be either scalable or appropiate. > > > Right, brain fart on my part. Reverse map has nothing to do with a geoip > database. > It's still strange that it has no reverse map though. I wonder what might > break because > of that assumption :) > > Mike >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> > >
