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-ass>there should be a FOIA-like method to see large > > allocation justifications</ass> > Realistically, I suppose Verizon Wireless is big enough to dictate to > the manufacturers of handsets and infrastructure, "you must support IPv6 > by X date or we will no longer buy / sell your product." I wonder if > any wireless carriers are doing this today? > > 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 that there is no current explanation for Verizon > Wireless needing 27M IPs.
Well it's a 8M allocation for current population of 2M with a 25M more potential handsets that will be upgraded soon. This looks to be consistent with how ARIN hands out other blocks of address space. Say on average that you replace a cell phone every three years. In 6 months there will be ~4M more addresses needed. 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. Mark > Does ARIN lack sufficient resources to vet jumbo requests? > > Did Verizon Wireless benefit from favoritism? > > Is Barack Obama concerned that his blackberry will not function if > Verizon one day runs out of v4 addresses for its customers? > > - j > > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: mark_andr...@isc.org