>> 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
>> Commen
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
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 the time.
>
> The numbers I keep seeing for so-called "smartphones" in the pre
Exactly.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Joel Jaeggli 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 the
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 compa
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 ma
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 apparen
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 wrot
In message , 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 and not doing better
> due dilligence when rese
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, touch screen,
read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP br
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:45:51 +0100
Eliot Lear 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, touch s
> > 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
> >
>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 wor
>> > 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 IPv
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
> Whatever happened to NAT?
>
> Jeff
NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
there should be a FOIA-like method to see large
allocation justifications
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:37 -0800, Aaron Glenn wrote:
> NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
> there should be a FOIA-like method to see large
> allocation justifications
Realistically, I suppose Verizon Wireless is big enough to dictate to
the manufacturers of handsets an
> 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?
> > there should be a FOIA-like method to see large
> > allocation justifications
> Re
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Mark Andrews 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 ('extremely high growth
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 fri
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 neces
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Aaron Glenn wrote:
> NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
> there should be a FOIA-like method to see large
> allocation justifications
Probably because Verizon Business isn't using it, unless you count a
couple of lab GRE tunnels.
Drive
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Jeff S Wheeler 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 obvious reality
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Aaron Glenn wrote:
>> NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
>> there should be a FOIA-like method to see large
>> allocation justifications
>
> Probably because Verizon Business isn't using
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 1000,
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 (68.
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:25:40 +0900, Randy Bush said:
>>> 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^
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 to
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
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 SU045
33 matches
Mail list logo
