There are major GSM-land wireless operators who provide service to devices like Novatel's line of pocket-size WLAN hotspots.
You can just buy one and stick a SIM in it, but some of the ops offer them as part of a business user package. I hope that means they get a proper IP or more handed out from the SGSN, as otherwise this would be a true orgy of NAT. (Top posting on mobile) "Jack Bates" <jba...@brightok.net> wrote: >On 2/10/2011 9:11 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: >> I was explaining to my wife today how it felt like the nanog list >went to 3x the typical mail volume recently with all the IPv6 stuff >this month. Why the pro-IPv6 crowd was happy, the anti-IPv6 crowd is >groaning (including those that truly despise the whole thing, etc..) > >I was having fun discussing with my wife how ARIN stuff ended up on >NANOG, NANOG stuff ended up on PPML, and I've been listening and >participating in debates concerning IPv6 and CGN (apparently BEHAVE WG >adopted CGN over LSN) on 4 different mailing lists. > >To be honest, though. I'm pro-IPv6, but I'm not happy. Anyone who is >happy doesn't care about those innocent people who are ignorant of what > >is going on and why. > >> I honestly think that the LSN situations won't be as bad as some of >us think. The big carriers have already been doing some flavor of this >with their cellular/data networks. Doing this on some of the consumer >networks will likely not be "that much" pain. Obviously the pain will >vary per subscriber/home. > ><snip lots of good stuff I agree with> >> IPv4 is "dead" in my opinion. Not dead as in useless, but to the >point where I don't think there is value in spending a lot of time >worrying about the v4 side of the world when so much needs to be fixed >in IPv6 land. >Service requirements in cellular networks are considerably different >than wireline. Apparently, most cell customers don't hook a CPE router >into their cell network and play their game consoles over it, along >with >many other situations. This actually means that most often, they are >running a single stage NAT44 LSN (which still breaks stuff, but most of > >the things it would break aren't normally transiting the cellular >networks). > ><snip more good stuff I agree with> > >I agree. However, because the largest networks and corporations decided > >(and some still do) to wait until the last moment to deal with IPv6, we > >will have to deal with IPv4 in much worse conditions. I know that there > >are large cellular networks which use DoD bogons behind huge LSN >implementations. I know that some networks apparently aren't happy with > >using DoD bogons and would like to waste even more space. The best >solution for such a case (and to solve all arguments on the matter) is >to secure assurances on the bogons so that they can be safely used. > > > > >Jack -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.