Re: Verizon Wireless NRB group

[Ross Tajvar]

Not sure if you have this already, but their phone number is +1
866-899-8998.

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:41 AM Mark Stevens  wrote:

> Verizon Wireless had a serious 4G/LTE issue affecting the Thingspace
> product that cause a complete outage for many of our customers.
> It would be greatly appreciated if someone from the Verizon NRB (Network
> Repair) group would connect with me offline the routing and filtering
> issues we saw.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
>

Verizon Wireless NRB group

[Mark Stevens]

Verizon Wireless had a serious 4G/LTE issue affecting the Thingspace 
product that cause a complete outage for many of our customers.
It would be greatly appreciated if someone from the Verizon NRB (Network 
Repair) group would connect with me offline the routing and filtering 
issues we saw.



Thanks

Mark

Re: Verizon Wireless

[Mike Hammett]

https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops 


Also, look up the VZW contacts in the NPAC Helpdesk and ask them directly. I 
learned that little tidbit only a couple of months ago. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Chris Whelan"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:00:00 PM 
Subject: Verizon Wireless 


Hello everyone, I know this is a long shot, but I'm hoping someone on here 
works for Verizon Wireless or knows someone that is in a position to assist us. 
Recently, a change to call routing occurred and Verizon Wireless calls are now 
being delivered across our tandem instead of a SIP peer. Ideally, I would like 
to establish a SIP trunk to Verizon Wireless but changing the call flow is the 
short term goal. Thanks in advance for your help! 



























Christopher Whelan 
Director of Network Engineering 
GWI 

office 207-602-1115 
cell 207-751-5013 www.gwi.net 

Verizon Wireless

[Chris Whelan]

Hello everyone, I know this is a long shot, but I'm hoping someone on here
works for Verizon Wireless or knows someone that is in a position to assist
us.  Recently, a change to call routing occurred and Verizon Wireless calls
are now being delivered across our tandem instead of a SIP peer.  Ideally,
I would like to establish a SIP trunk to Verizon Wireless but changing the
call flow is the short term goal.  Thanks in advance for your help!




Christopher Whelan

Director of Network Engineering

GWI

office 207-602-1115

*cell* 207-751-5013
www.gwi.net

Re: Verizon or Verizon Wireless contact

[Mike Hammett]

https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Jeff Shultz"  
To: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 2:26:25 PM 
Subject: Verizon or Verizon Wireless contact 


Looking for a contact with a clue at Verizon/Wireless who can help me with a 
problem, to wit, Verizon is blocking calls from our landline customers to one 
of their local wireless prefixes. We've got the error that the Verizon switch 
gives ("Welcome to Verizon your call can not be completed as dialed. 
Announcement for switch 3 0 dash 2.) 


Any publicly available numbers or tech support just leads me in circles. I 
figure if I keep at it long enough, I'll collect the whole set of their toll 
free numbers... but I'd prefer not to. 


Thanks! 


-- 





Jeff Shultz 

Central Office Technician 
SCTC 
(503) 769-2125 
Go Big Ask for Gig 
Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!! 

















*** This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete 
this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore 
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. *** 

Verizon or Verizon Wireless contact

[Jeff Shultz]

Looking for a contact with a clue at Verizon/Wireless who can help me with
a problem, to wit, Verizon is blocking calls from our landline customers to
one of their local wireless prefixes. We've got the error that the Verizon
switch gives ("Welcome to Verizon your call can not be completed as dialed.
Announcement for switch 3 0 dash 2.)

Any publicly available numbers or tech support just leads me in circles. I
figure if I keep at it long enough, I'll collect the whole set of their
toll free numbers... but I'd prefer not to.

Thanks!

-- 
Jeff Shultz
Central Office Technician
SCTC
(503) 769-2125
Go Big  Ask for Gig

-- 
Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!

   
<https://www.facebook.com/SCTCWEB/>      
<https://www.instagram.com/sctc_503/>      
<https://www.yelp.com/biz/sctc-stayton-3>      
<https://www.youtube.com/c/sctcvideos>













_ This message 
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual 
named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by 
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail 
from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does 
not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. _

Verizon Wireless

[Mark Stevens]

Good morning,

If a Verizon Wireless engineer covering NJ/NYC could contact me offline 
it would be much appreciated.

We are currently seeing one way voice paths from VZW in 3 NJ tandems.

Thanks

Mark

Needed: Verizon Wireless DNS technical contact

[Alan Clegg]

Hi!

I'm dealing with an issue with the mnc480.mcc311.3gppnetwork.org zone
and need to talk to someone at Verizon Wireless.

Any direct contacts or pointers would be very much appreciated.

Thanks!
AlanC



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Verizon Wireless IPv6 deployment contact?

[Randy Carpenter]

Is there anyone from Verizon Wireless that I can talk to regarding IPv6 
deployment? I am getting nonsensical answers from my local contacts.

Please contact me off-list.

thanks,
-Randy

Contact within Verizon Wireless

[Sean Fitzgerald via NANOG]

Hello all,

I'm looking for a contact within Verizon Wireless US networking operations.
Please contact me at this address.

thanks,

Sean Fitzgerald

RE: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

[Steve Mikulasik]

Verizon Wireless has been pushing their clients away from static IPv4 for some 
time. I inquired last year about getting one for a specific project and was 
told it would be a large upfront cost, limited to certain accounts and required 
justification. 

I imagine in the years coming this will become the norm for carriers. 

Re: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 08/03/2017, Miles Fidelman  wrote:
> Seems to me that the only people who get static, wireless, IP addresses
> are people who put sensors on vehicles and IoT applications.  Who gets a
> static IP for a phone?  This might cause some serious heartburn for my
> previous employer - who built CAD systems for transit buses.
>
> Miles Fidelman

With how much memory and processing power any modern
internet-connected device has, plus the ever ubiquitous cloud, I don't
understand why IoT, especially non-consumer-grade IoT, should have any
need for public IPv4 addresses.

Even if you have a very legacy app, and IPsec is too complex for your
needs, doing an SSH session with OpenSSH and its port forwarding
feature is just too simple to pass up.  http://mdoc.su/o/ssh.1

I mean, come on, if malware vendors have no need for public IP
addresses to take control of your IoT and perform C, you're clearly
doing something wrong if your own shit doesn't work without it.

Cheers,
http://Constantine.SU/

Re: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM,  wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 22:08:59 -0500, Christopher Morrow said:
> > > previous employer - who built CAD systems for transit buses.
> > on the bright side they can just get fios or dsl (depending on location)
> ..
> > you know you can still get v4 there, and won't even have to worry about
> > that pesky new fangled ipv6 .
>
> FIOS for a transit bus?
>
>
it seems as likely to be true as ipv6 on fios, yes.

Re: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 22:08:59 -0500, Christopher Morrow said:
> > previous employer - who built CAD systems for transit buses.
> on the bright side they can just get fios or dsl (depending on location) ..
> you know you can still get v4 there, and won't even have to worry about
> that pesky new fangled ipv6 .

FIOS for a transit bus?



pgpTC_2aqCOu6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

[Ca By]

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:10 PM Christopher Morrow 
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Miles Fidelman  >
> wrote:
>
> > Seems to me that the only people who get static, wireless, IP addresses
> > are people who put sensors on vehicles and IoT applications.  Who gets a
> > static IP for a phone?  This might cause some serious heartburn for my
> > previous employer - who built CAD systems for transit buses.
> >
> >
> on the bright side they can just get fios or dsl (depending on location) ..
> you know you can still get v4 there, and won't even have to worry about
> that pesky new fangled



The economics of this is very interesting.

Normally, with scarcity, i would expect price to go up.  VZW is running low
on ipv4  addresses, so they raise prices to stem demand. They acquire ipv4
on the secondary market and pass cost along with mark up to customers 

But -- vzw knows if they raise prices customers will just go elsewhere.
Also, their growth model simply may show that there is no way to meet
demand with ipv4, ipv4 is fundamentally holding back iot growth, so they
need to pivot / move to ipv6 to unchain the growth.

Seems smart. The runway for ipv4 is too short for iot growth. Forcing the
hand to scalable ipv6 now will pay dividends and prevent investment in
unscalable ipv4 solutions

Re: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Miles Fidelman 
wrote:

> Seems to me that the only people who get static, wireless, IP addresses
> are people who put sensors on vehicles and IoT applications.  Who gets a
> static IP for a phone?  This might cause some serious heartburn for my
> previous employer - who built CAD systems for transit buses.
>
>
on the bright side they can just get fios or dsl (depending on location) ..
you know you can still get v4 there, and won't even have to worry about
that pesky new fangled ipv6 .

Re: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

[Miles Fidelman]

Seems to me that the only people who get static, wireless, IP addresses 
are people who put sensors on vehicles and IoT applications.  Who gets a 
static IP for a phone?  This might cause some serious heartburn for my 
previous employer - who built CAD systems for transit buses.


Miles Fidelman


On 3/8/17 6:13 PM, Luke Guillory wrote:

My customer got the email and the only service they have is wireless. Also 
notice the email address.

From: Verizon Wireless 
<verizonwirele...@email.vzwshop.com<mailto:verizonwirele...@email.vzwshop.com>>




Sent from my iPad

On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Keith Stokes 
<kei...@neilltech.com<mailto:kei...@neilltech.com>> wrote:

You said the e-mail was from VZ wireless but the e-mail text says Verizon. Is 
it really all of Verizon, VZ Wireless, home, business or some combination?

On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:16 AM, David Hubbard 
<dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com<mailto:dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com><mailto:dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com>>
 wrote:

Thought the list would find this interesting.  Just received an email from VZ 
wireless that they’re going to stop selling static IPv4 for wireless 
subscribers in June.  That should make for some interesting support calls on 
the broadband/fios side; one half of the company is forcing ipv6, the other 
can’t provide it.  At least now we have a big name forcing the issue though.

David

Here’s complete text:

On June 30, 2017, Verizon will stop issuing new Public Static IPv4 addresses 
due to a shortage of available addresses. Customers that currently have active 
Public Static IPv4 addresses will retain those addresses, and Verizon will 
continue to fully support existing Public Static IPv4 addresses. In order to 
reserve new IP addresses, your company will need to convert to the Persistent 
Prefix IPv6 requirements and implement new Verizon-certified IPv6 devices.





Why should you make the move to Persistent Prefix IPv6?





•

Unlike IPv4, which is limited to a 32-bit prefix, Persistent Prefix IPv6 has 
128-bit addressing scheme, which aligns to current international agreements and 
standards.



•

Persistent Prefix IPv6 will provide the device with an IP address unique to 
that device that will remain with that device until the address is relinquished 
by the user (i.e., when the user moves the device off the Verizon Wireless 
network).



•

IPv4-only devices are not compatible with Persistent Prefix IPv6 addresses.









---

Keith Stokes







Luke Guillory
Network Operations Manager


 [cid:imagefe9475.JPG@ae2f04c2.45884860] <http://www.rtconline.com>

Tel:985.536.1212
Fax:985.536.0300
Email:  lguill...@reservetele.com
Web:www.rtconline.com

 Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084





Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the 
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be 
copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received 
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail 
transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information 
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or 
contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any 
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of 
e-mail transmission.



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

[Luke Guillory]

My customer got the email and the only service they have is wireless. Also 
notice the email address.

From: Verizon Wireless 
<verizonwirele...@email.vzwshop.com<mailto:verizonwirele...@email.vzwshop.com>>




Sent from my iPad

On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Keith Stokes 
<kei...@neilltech.com<mailto:kei...@neilltech.com>> wrote:

You said the e-mail was from VZ wireless but the e-mail text says Verizon. Is 
it really all of Verizon, VZ Wireless, home, business or some combination?

On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:16 AM, David Hubbard 
<dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com<mailto:dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com><mailto:dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com>>
 wrote:

Thought the list would find this interesting.  Just received an email from VZ 
wireless that they’re going to stop selling static IPv4 for wireless 
subscribers in June.  That should make for some interesting support calls on 
the broadband/fios side; one half of the company is forcing ipv6, the other 
can’t provide it.  At least now we have a big name forcing the issue though.

David

Here’s complete text:

On June 30, 2017, Verizon will stop issuing new Public Static IPv4 addresses 
due to a shortage of available addresses. Customers that currently have active 
Public Static IPv4 addresses will retain those addresses, and Verizon will 
continue to fully support existing Public Static IPv4 addresses. In order to 
reserve new IP addresses, your company will need to convert to the Persistent 
Prefix IPv6 requirements and implement new Verizon-certified IPv6 devices.





Why should you make the move to Persistent Prefix IPv6?





•

Unlike IPv4, which is limited to a 32-bit prefix, Persistent Prefix IPv6 has 
128-bit addressing scheme, which aligns to current international agreements and 
standards.



•

Persistent Prefix IPv6 will provide the device with an IP address unique to 
that device that will remain with that device until the address is relinquished 
by the user (i.e., when the user moves the device off the Verizon Wireless 
network).



•

IPv4-only devices are not compatible with Persistent Prefix IPv6 addresses.









---

Keith Stokes







Luke Guillory
Network Operations Manager


[cid:imagefe9475.JPG@ae2f04c2.45884860] <http://www.rtconline.com>

Tel:985.536.1212
Fax:985.536.0300
Email:  lguill...@reservetele.com
Web:www.rtconline.com

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084





Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the 
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be 
copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received 
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail 
transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information 
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or 
contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any 
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of 
e-mail transmission.

Re: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

[Keith Stokes]

You said the e-mail was from VZ wireless but the e-mail text says Verizon. Is 
it really all of Verizon, VZ Wireless, home, business or some combination?

On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:16 AM, David Hubbard 
<dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com<mailto:dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com>> wrote:

Thought the list would find this interesting.  Just received an email from VZ 
wireless that they’re going to stop selling static IPv4 for wireless 
subscribers in June.  That should make for some interesting support calls on 
the broadband/fios side; one half of the company is forcing ipv6, the other 
can’t provide it.  At least now we have a big name forcing the issue though.

David

Here’s complete text:

On June 30, 2017, Verizon will stop issuing new Public Static IPv4 addresses 
due to a shortage of available addresses. Customers that currently have active 
Public Static IPv4 addresses will retain those addresses, and Verizon will 
continue to fully support existing Public Static IPv4 addresses. In order to 
reserve new IP addresses, your company will need to convert to the Persistent 
Prefix IPv6 requirements and implement new Verizon-certified IPv6 devices.





Why should you make the move to Persistent Prefix IPv6?





•

Unlike IPv4, which is limited to a 32-bit prefix, Persistent Prefix IPv6 has 
128-bit addressing scheme, which aligns to current international agreements and 
standards.



•

Persistent Prefix IPv6 will provide the device with an IP address unique to 
that device that will remain with that device until the address is relinquished 
by the user (i.e., when the user moves the device off the Verizon Wireless 
network).



•

IPv4-only devices are not compatible with Persistent Prefix IPv6 addresses.









---

Keith Stokes

Re: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

[Ed Lopez]

I'm assuming no consideration for using RFC-6598 addresses (100.64.0.0/10)
and performing CGN as a bridge, perhaps via LW4o6


On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:31 PM Randy Carpenter <rcar...@network1.net>
wrote:

>
> It would have been nice if Verizon had starting issuing IPv6 while still
> issuing IPv4 for an easy transition. The current situation is that you
> can't get static IPv6 at all. I have been bugging them about this for many
> years.
>
> thanks,
> -Randy
>
>
> - On Mar 8, 2017, at 12:16 PM, David Hubbard
> dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com wrote:
>
> > Thought the list would find this interesting.  Just received an email
> from VZ
> > wireless that they’re going to stop selling static IPv4 for wireless
> > subscribers in June.  That should make for some interesting support
> calls on
> > the broadband/fios side; one half of the company is forcing ipv6, the
> other
> > can’t provide it.  At least now we have a big name forcing the issue
> though.
> >
> > David
> >
> > Here’s complete text:
> >
> > On June 30, 2017, Verizon will stop issuing new Public Static IPv4
> addresses due
> > to a shortage of available addresses. Customers that currently have
> active
> > Public Static IPv4 addresses will retain those addresses, and Verizon
> will
> > continue to fully support existing Public Static IPv4 addresses. In
> order to
> > reserve new IP addresses, your company will need to convert to the
> Persistent
> > Prefix IPv6 requirements and implement new Verizon-certified IPv6
> devices.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Why should you make the move to Persistent Prefix IPv6?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > •
> >
> > Unlike IPv4, which is limited to a 32-bit prefix, Persistent Prefix IPv6
> has
> > 128-bit addressing scheme, which aligns to current international
> agreements and
> > standards.
> >
> >
> >
> > •
> >
> > Persistent Prefix IPv6 will provide the device with an IP address unique
> to that
> > device that will remain with that device until the address is
> relinquished by
> > the user (i.e., when the user moves the device off the Verizon Wireless
> > network).
> >
> >
> >
> > •
> >
> > IPv4-only devices are not compatible with Persistent Prefix IPv6
> addresses.
>
-- 
Ed Lopez | Security Architect | Corsa Technology
Email: ed.lo...@corsa.com
Mobile: +1.703.220.0988
www.corsa.com

sent from my iPad ... I apologize for any auto-correct errors

Re: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

[Randy Carpenter]

It would have been nice if Verizon had starting issuing IPv6 while still 
issuing IPv4 for an easy transition. The current situation is that you can't 
get static IPv6 at all. I have been bugging them about this for many years.

thanks,
-Randy


- On Mar 8, 2017, at 12:16 PM, David Hubbard dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com 
wrote:

> Thought the list would find this interesting.  Just received an email from VZ
> wireless that they’re going to stop selling static IPv4 for wireless
> subscribers in June.  That should make for some interesting support calls on
> the broadband/fios side; one half of the company is forcing ipv6, the other
> can’t provide it.  At least now we have a big name forcing the issue though.
> 
> David
> 
> Here’s complete text:
> 
> On June 30, 2017, Verizon will stop issuing new Public Static IPv4 addresses 
> due
> to a shortage of available addresses. Customers that currently have active
> Public Static IPv4 addresses will retain those addresses, and Verizon will
> continue to fully support existing Public Static IPv4 addresses. In order to
> reserve new IP addresses, your company will need to convert to the Persistent
> Prefix IPv6 requirements and implement new Verizon-certified IPv6 devices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should you make the move to Persistent Prefix IPv6?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> •
> 
> Unlike IPv4, which is limited to a 32-bit prefix, Persistent Prefix IPv6 has
> 128-bit addressing scheme, which aligns to current international agreements 
> and
> standards.
> 
> 
> 
> •
> 
> Persistent Prefix IPv6 will provide the device with an IP address unique to 
> that
> device that will remain with that device until the address is relinquished by
> the user (i.e., when the user moves the device off the Verizon Wireless
> network).
> 
> 
> 
> •
> 
> IPv4-only devices are not compatible with Persistent Prefix IPv6 addresses.

Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

[David Hubbard]

Thought the list would find this interesting.  Just received an email from VZ 
wireless that they’re going to stop selling static IPv4 for wireless 
subscribers in June.  That should make for some interesting support calls on 
the broadband/fios side; one half of the company is forcing ipv6, the other 
can’t provide it.  At least now we have a big name forcing the issue though.

David

Here’s complete text:

On June 30, 2017, Verizon will stop issuing new Public Static IPv4 addresses 
due to a shortage of available addresses. Customers that currently have active 
Public Static IPv4 addresses will retain those addresses, and Verizon will 
continue to fully support existing Public Static IPv4 addresses. In order to 
reserve new IP addresses, your company will need to convert to the Persistent 
Prefix IPv6 requirements and implement new Verizon-certified IPv6 devices.





Why should you make the move to Persistent Prefix IPv6?





•

Unlike IPv4, which is limited to a 32-bit prefix, Persistent Prefix IPv6 has 
128-bit addressing scheme, which aligns to current international agreements and 
standards.



•

Persistent Prefix IPv6 will provide the device with an IP address unique to 
that device that will remain with that device until the address is relinquished 
by the user (i.e., when the user moves the device off the Verizon Wireless 
network).



•

IPv4-only devices are not compatible with Persistent Prefix IPv6 addresses.

Verizon Wireless Back-haul Transport

[Mark Stevens]

Good afternoon all,

If there is a Verizon wireless back-haul transport engineer on the list 
that can reach out to me offline, it would be great.


Topic: bad trunks in the New Brunswick NJ Tandem office.


Thanks

Mark

Verizon Wireless contact

[Matt Larson]

Could someone from Verizon Wireless please contact me off-list?

Thanks,

Matt
--
Matt Larson <matt.lar...@icann.org>
VP of Research
Office of the CTO, ICANN
+1 240 459-9562 (mobile)

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

[Allen Kitchen]

Confirming problems making or receiving calls to phone numbers with a Florida 
LATA, no matter where those phones actually reside. (In this case, SW PA.) 
Verizon wireless website shows "temporarily unavailable while we upgrade our 
systems" on selected My Vz pages. 

..Allen


> On Jun 14, 2016, at 18:34, Kraig Beahn <kr...@enguity.com> wrote:
> 
> Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and some
> 3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the SE,
> however, seeing reports nationwide as well.
> 
> 
> --

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

[Kraig Beahn]

So far, except having to wait for remote reboots on several hundred sites,
looking good.

Voice, Data and and the few VZW 4G Network Extenders are processing LTE
packets properly.

Thanks Alex, for the insight and update (s).

Sent via EnguiFi LTE Mobile
On Jun 14, 2016 8:05 PM, "Alex Buie" <alex.b...@frozenfeline.net> wrote:

> Issue is supposedly resolved. Please test :)
> On Jun 14, 2016 7:33 PM, "Kraig Beahn" <kr...@enguity.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Alex and Allen,
>>
>> All of the devices tested on our side have Florida NPA/NXX's, including
>> data only devices, which is more than likely the reason we are seeing
>> issues elsewhere across the country.
>>
>> Seems to be reports elsewhere of similar issues, however is probably
>> related to the same style MSC/HLR routing (back to Florida)
>>
>> The issue still persists, as of the timestamp of this email, tho, we did
>> confirm 911 was unaffected, at least in the North Florida territory.
>>
>> Sent via EnguiFi LTE Mobile
>> On Jun 14, 2016 7:15 PM, "Allen Kitchen" <allenmckinleykitc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Confirming problems making or receiving calls to phone numbers with a
>> > Florida LATA, no matter where those phones actually reside. (In this
>> case,
>> > SW PA.) Verizon wireless website shows "temporarily unavailable while we
>> > upgrade our systems" on selected My Vz pages.
>> >
>> > ..Allen
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Jun 14, 2016, at 18:34, Kraig Beahn <kr...@enguity.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and
>> some
>> > > 3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the
>> SE,
>> > > however, seeing reports nationwide as well.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> >
>>
>

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

[Alex Buie]

Issue is supposedly resolved. Please test :)
On Jun 14, 2016 7:33 PM, "Kraig Beahn" <kr...@enguity.com> wrote:

> Thanks Alex and Allen,
>
> All of the devices tested on our side have Florida NPA/NXX's, including
> data only devices, which is more than likely the reason we are seeing
> issues elsewhere across the country.
>
> Seems to be reports elsewhere of similar issues, however is probably
> related to the same style MSC/HLR routing (back to Florida)
>
> The issue still persists, as of the timestamp of this email, tho, we did
> confirm 911 was unaffected, at least in the North Florida territory.
>
> Sent via EnguiFi LTE Mobile
> On Jun 14, 2016 7:15 PM, "Allen Kitchen" <allenmckinleykitc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Confirming problems making or receiving calls to phone numbers with a
> > Florida LATA, no matter where those phones actually reside. (In this
> case,
> > SW PA.) Verizon wireless website shows "temporarily unavailable while we
> > upgrade our systems" on selected My Vz pages.
> >
> > ..Allen
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 14, 2016, at 18:34, Kraig Beahn <kr...@enguity.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and
> some
> > > 3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the
> SE,
> > > however, seeing reports nationwide as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> >
>

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

[Kraig Beahn]

Thanks Alex and Allen,

All of the devices tested on our side have Florida NPA/NXX's, including
data only devices, which is more than likely the reason we are seeing
issues elsewhere across the country.

Seems to be reports elsewhere of similar issues, however is probably
related to the same style MSC/HLR routing (back to Florida)

The issue still persists, as of the timestamp of this email, tho, we did
confirm 911 was unaffected, at least in the North Florida territory.

Sent via EnguiFi LTE Mobile
On Jun 14, 2016 7:15 PM, "Allen Kitchen" <allenmckinleykitc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Confirming problems making or receiving calls to phone numbers with a
> Florida LATA, no matter where those phones actually reside. (In this case,
> SW PA.) Verizon wireless website shows "temporarily unavailable while we
> upgrade our systems" on selected My Vz pages.
>
> ..Allen
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 2016, at 18:34, Kraig Beahn <kr...@enguity.com> wrote:
> >
> > Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and some
> > 3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the SE,
> > however, seeing reports nationwide as well.
> >
> >
> > --
>

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

[Alex Buie]

Large scale outage in FL, primarily affecting customers who have Advanced
Calling (VoLTE) turned on and calling CDMA/PSTN destinations. However it
appears there are many areas whose data connectivity is also affected.

Will pass along any updates I can.

Over 2k calls in the Tech Support queue right now, wish me luck! Time to
jump into the sharks. Haha.

Alex
(VZW tech)

All statements and opinions are my own and do not reflect that of  Verizon
Wireless or its subsidiaries.
On Jun 14, 2016 6:35 PM, "Kraig Beahn" <kr...@enguity.com> wrote:

Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and some
3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the SE,
however, seeing reports nationwide as well.


--

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

[Miles Fidelman]

No problems in Newton, MA (Boston suburb).  43/5.

Miles Fidelman

On 6/14/16 6:51 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

25/8 in Troy.  Phone works.  I am using the "advanced calling" not sure
what it is though.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jun 14, 2016 6:45 PM, "Robert Webb" <rwfireg...@gmail.com> wrote:


Seeing no issues in WV. Speeds are 50/10.
On Jun 14, 2016 6:35 PM, "Kraig Beahn" <kr...@enguity.com> wrote:


Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and some
3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the SE,
however, seeing reports nationwide as well.


--



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

[Josh Luthman]

25/8 in Troy.  Phone works.  I am using the "advanced calling" not sure
what it is though.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jun 14, 2016 6:45 PM, "Robert Webb" <rwfireg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Seeing no issues in WV. Speeds are 50/10.
> On Jun 14, 2016 6:35 PM, "Kraig Beahn" <kr...@enguity.com> wrote:
>
> > Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and some
> > 3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the SE,
> > however, seeing reports nationwide as well.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
>

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

[Robert Webb]

Seeing no issues in WV. Speeds are 50/10.
On Jun 14, 2016 6:35 PM, "Kraig Beahn" <kr...@enguity.com> wrote:

> Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and some
> 3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the SE,
> however, seeing reports nationwide as well.
>
>
> --
>

Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

[Kraig Beahn]

Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and some
3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the SE,
however, seeing reports nationwide as well.


--

Re: Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation

[William McCall]

I've seen this behavior before (a few years back). Moved off of VzW for
this reason (i'm lazy to implement workarounds).

IIRC when i investigated, the ALG was trying to not do something nefarious
but just poorly implemented.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Christopher Morrow
>  wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Mark Stevens 
> wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Has anyone seen that something (most likely an alg) on Verizon's LTE/4G
> >> network is rewriting SIP headers,in particular From Tag identifiers? We
> >> cannot make a SIP call from our cellphones (using cellular data) beyond
> 30
> >> seconds because the TAGs are rewritten and the destination Asterisk
> server
> >> drops the call because of this.
> >>
> >
> > I'm shocked that the cellular carrier is making over-the-top phone
> > calls non-functional. I'm sure they'll agree to meet you at their CO
> > so you can do the proper work request sometime between 6am and 7pm in
> > 2 weeks time.
> >
>
> joking aside, are you sure the packets get mangledin VZW and not
> elsewhere along the path? how would you be able to prove it?
>
> > go incombancy!
> >
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Mark
>



-- 
William McCall

Re: Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Christopher Morrow
 wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Mark Stevens  wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Has anyone seen that something (most likely an alg) on Verizon's LTE/4G
>> network is rewriting SIP headers,in particular From Tag identifiers? We
>> cannot make a SIP call from our cellphones (using cellular data) beyond 30
>> seconds because the TAGs are rewritten and the destination Asterisk server
>> drops the call because of this.
>>
>
> I'm shocked that the cellular carrier is making over-the-top phone
> calls non-functional. I'm sure they'll agree to meet you at their CO
> so you can do the proper work request sometime between 6am and 7pm in
> 2 weeks time.
>

joking aside, are you sure the packets get mangledin VZW and not
elsewhere along the path? how would you be able to prove it?

> go incombancy!
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Mark

Re: Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation

[Mark Stevens]

TLS would be perfect but it is not viable at this point. I guess with 
Verizon being what they are, it is time to start working on a SIP over  
TLS implementation.


On 9/22/2015 12:24 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:

On 9/22/15 9:03 AM, Mark Stevens wrote:

Hi All,

Has anyone seen that something (most likely an alg) on Verizon's LTE/4G
network is rewriting SIP headers,in particular From Tag identifiers? We
cannot make a SIP call from our cellphones (using cellular data) beyond
30 seconds because the TAGs are rewritten and the destination Asterisk
server drops the call because of this.

sounds like a really good application for TLS


Thanks

Mark

RE: Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation

[Naslund, Steve]

Send all of your signaling over TLS and they won't be able to see or modify it.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Stevens
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 11:03 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation

Hi All,

Has anyone seen that something (most likely an alg) on Verizon's LTE/4G network 
is rewriting SIP headers,in particular From Tag identifiers? We cannot make a 
SIP call from our cellphones (using cellular data) beyond
30 seconds because the TAGs are rewritten and the destination Asterisk server 
drops the call because of this.

Thanks

Mark

Re: Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation

[Dovid Bender]

We have this every now and then. Mainly with traffic from the middle east. 
Switching the port to something other than 5060 seems to help most of the time. 
Every so often we need to go the vpn route.

I know that yealink, snim and possibly polycom have vpn clients built into them.
--Original Message--
From: Mark Stevens
Sender: NANOG
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation
Sent: Sep 22, 2015 12:03

Hi All,

Has anyone seen that something (most likely an alg) on Verizon's LTE/4G 
network is rewriting SIP headers,in particular From Tag identifiers? We 
cannot make a SIP call from our cellphones (using cellular data) beyond 
30 seconds because the TAGs are rewritten and the destination Asterisk 
server drops the call because of this.

Thanks

Mark

Regards,

Dovid

Re: Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation

[Mark Stevens]

The TAG unique identifier is being changed and this only happens through 
VZ LTE networks, not wired networks or even other cellular data networks 
(Sprint, ATT, T-Mobile)
Their phones are IPV6 so the packets are getting converted to IPV4 so it 
is either happening there or there is a global ALG in Verizon land that 
is doing it .
For positive proof I would need Verizon to fess up (LOL) but that will 
not happen or sniff traffic from the cellphone itself.





On 9/22/2015 3:51 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Christopher Morrow
 wrote:

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Mark Stevens  wrote:

Hi All,

Has anyone seen that something (most likely an alg) on Verizon's LTE/4G
network is rewriting SIP headers,in particular From Tag identifiers? We
cannot make a SIP call from our cellphones (using cellular data) beyond 30
seconds because the TAGs are rewritten and the destination Asterisk server
drops the call because of this.


I'm shocked that the cellular carrier is making over-the-top phone
calls non-functional. I'm sure they'll agree to meet you at their CO
so you can do the proper work request sometime between 6am and 7pm in
2 weeks time.


joking aside, are you sure the packets get mangledin VZW and not
elsewhere along the path? how would you be able to prove it?


go incombancy!


Thanks

Mark

Re: Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Mark Stevens  wrote:
> The TAG unique identifier is being changed and this only happens through VZ
> LTE networks, not wired networks or even other cellular data networks
> (Sprint, ATT, T-Mobile)
> Their phones are IPV6 so the packets are getting converted to IPV4 so it is
> either happening there or there is a global ALG in Verizon land that is
> doing it .
> For positive proof I would need Verizon to fess up (LOL) but that will not
> happen or sniff traffic from the cellphone itself.

welp, interesting, good luck in your battle with the pstn.

Re: Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation

[Jared Mauch]

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Christopher Morrow  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Mark Stevens  wrote:
>> The TAG unique identifier is being changed and this only happens through VZ
>> LTE networks, not wired networks or even other cellular data networks
>> (Sprint, ATT, T-Mobile)
>> Their phones are IPV6 so the packets are getting converted to IPV4 so it is
>> either happening there or there is a global ALG in Verizon land that is
>> doing it .
>> For positive proof I would need Verizon to fess up (LOL) but that will not
>> happen or sniff traffic from the cellphone itself.
> 
> welp, interesting, good luck in your battle with the pstn.

I’ll say it’s not just VZW that does this, there are issues with many CPE 
devices
that mangle SIP traffic due to broken ALG.  My plea is if you’re a carrier
that provides a CPE, *please* provide an option to disable the ALG, or expose it
to the customer so they can disable it.  *Looks in 7018/7132 direction*

- Jared

Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation

[Mark Stevens]

Hi All,

Has anyone seen that something (most likely an alg) on Verizon's LTE/4G 
network is rewriting SIP headers,in particular From Tag identifiers? We 
cannot make a SIP call from our cellphones (using cellular data) beyond 
30 seconds because the TAGs are rewritten and the destination Asterisk 
server drops the call because of this.


Thanks

Mark

Re: Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Mark Stevens  wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Has anyone seen that something (most likely an alg) on Verizon's LTE/4G
> network is rewriting SIP headers,in particular From Tag identifiers? We
> cannot make a SIP call from our cellphones (using cellular data) beyond 30
> seconds because the TAGs are rewritten and the destination Asterisk server
> drops the call because of this.
>

I'm shocked that the cellular carrier is making over-the-top phone
calls non-functional. I'm sure they'll agree to meet you at their CO
so you can do the proper work request sometime between 6am and 7pm in
2 weeks time.

go incombancy!

> Thanks
>
> Mark

Re: Verizon Wireless LTE/4G and SIP Header Manipulation

[joel jaeggli]

On 9/22/15 9:03 AM, Mark Stevens wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Has anyone seen that something (most likely an alg) on Verizon's LTE/4G
> network is rewriting SIP headers,in particular From Tag identifiers? We
> cannot make a SIP call from our cellphones (using cellular data) beyond
> 30 seconds because the TAGs are rewritten and the destination Asterisk
> server drops the call because of this.

sounds like a really good application for TLS

> Thanks
> 
> Mark
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Verizon Wireless

[Mark Stevens]

Hi there,

If any Verizon wireless network engineers are on nanog, could you please 
email me offline concerning network traffic delays?



Thanks

Mark

Verizon Wireless NOC contact

[Staudinger, Malcolm]

Can someone from Verizon contact me off-list? We're seeing DNS resolution 
issues to Earthlink domains from Verizon Wireless customers, and have only 
gotten the run around from our usual Verizon NOC contacts

Malcolm Staudinger
Information Security Analyst | EIS
EarthLink
www.earthlink.net

E: mstaudin...@corp.earthlink.commailto:mstaudin...@corp.earthlink.com

Verizon Wireless network contact?

[Scott Morris]

If there's anyone from the IP-side of Verizon Wireless, if you could
contact me off-list, that would be awesome!  Saves me hours of pointless
phone calls.  :)

Thanks!
-- 

 


*Scott Morris*, CCIE/x4/ (RS/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
CCDE #2009::D,

CCNP-Data Center, CCNP-Voice, JNCIE-SP #153, JNCIE-ER #102, JNCIS-QFX,
CISSP, et al.

IPv6 Gold Certified Engineer, IPv6 Gold Certified Trainer

CCSI #21903, JNCI-SP, JNCI-ER, JNCI-QFX

s...@emanon.com


Knowledge is power.

Power corrupts.

Study hard and be Eeeevl..

Re: Verizon Wireless security contact needed

[Paul WALL]

You should get yourself a lawyer.

This is what happened the last time someone from this community
attempted to report a security/data breach issue to a mobile provider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev

Drive Slow,
Paul Wall

On 3/27/13, nick hatch nicholas.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi all,

 I just discovered a somewhat-exigent issue which affects
 confidentiality for Verizon Wireless customers. (PSTN / Voice)

 I'm failing at trying to find a Verizon Wireless security contact
 through normal means. If someone can provide a contact off-list it
 would be much appreciated.

 Thanks,

 -Nick

Verizon Wireless security contact needed

[nick hatch]

Hi all,

I just discovered a somewhat-exigent issue which affects
confidentiality for Verizon Wireless customers. (PSTN / Voice)

I'm failing at trying to find a Verizon Wireless security contact
through normal means. If someone can provide a contact off-list it
would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

-Nick

RE: Verizon wireless (cdma/LTE) compatible ethernet connectable OOB access device.

[Scott Berkman]

We have one site using this type of OpeGear setup, but we use an LTE MiFi
with wireless to the OpenGear's WAN, but also use a USB port on the open
gear to keep the MiFi powered.

-Original Message-
From: Asaf Rapoport [mailto:arapop...@telepacific.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 6:10 PM
To: David Hubbard; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon wireless (cdma/LTE) compatible ethernet connectable OOB
access device.

OpenGear does make good, low footprint, low power consumption console
servers.
I think they have an IPSec stack too.
Note: They make another type with just a modem (I don't know why they don't
make one with both 3G and dialup?), in case the cell coverage is so spotty
that you won't get what you really need.

Just my 2 cents.

On 11/7/12 3:02 PM, David Hubbard dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com wrote:

OpenGear's stuff is awesome.

http://opengear.com/product-acm5000-g.html

We have the 5004G on Verizon, it has four serial ports, ethernet and 
USB running linux.  We have a 5 gig plan from Verizon and static IP for 
$50/month minus our corporate discount.  Since it's put on a 'machine' 
plan with them, you can get plans all the way down to I think $5/month 
with a few megabytes of included data; they treat it the same way you'd 
treat a cell backup for an alarm and similar devices.

You can have the OpenGear unit keep the data portion of the cellular 
side always live, or for added security and lower risk of data 
consumption by drive by scans, you can have it turn the data off and on 
by sending it text messages to the associated phone number.

You can ssh directly to serial ports by using different port numbers 
than standard, ssh in and then utilize the ports, there's a web-based 
serial interface too so they're really great for routers.  On the 
ethernet/web side you can do things like vpn gateway, proxying, port 
mapping, etc like you'd find in a typical consumer type soho router, or 
you can lock it all down for whatever you don't need.

My only complaint is no LTE version last I checked, which is fine for 
serial ports but an LTE would make it a lot nicer since then you could 
do more interactive things like remote desktop, heavy web traffic and 
other things that you might also want in a bind.

David

 -Original Message-
 From: Eric J Esslinger [mailto:eesslin...@fpu-tn.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:47 PM
 To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
 Subject: Verizon wireless (cdma/LTE) compatible ethernet connectable 
 OOB access device.
 
 We have Verizon Wireless as our provider of choice for our company, 
 and I've convinced those who are they that I need a completely OOB 
 method for getting back in the NOC, as we don't have a full time NOC 
 staff and internet coverage can be spotty around here in general, as 
 we're a small town.
 
 The people who need the OOB management access are getting 4G Myfi 
 devices with static IP addresses. What I need at our NOC is a 3 or 4G 
 (our area only has 3G atm) Verizon compatible device with an wired 
 ethernet link. I'm looking at several but wondered if anyone has any 
 familiarity with such units. I just need a basic wwan-ethernet 
 modem/bridge, I will be handling vpn termination, firewalling, access 
 control, and such with my existing firewall.
 
 Off-list is fine.
 
 __
 Eric Esslinger
 Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities 
 http://www.fpu-tn.com/
 (931)433-1522 ext 165
 
 This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information 
 and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally 
 addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited.
 
 
 

Re: Verizon wireless (cdma/LTE) compatible ethernet connectable OOB access device.

[Joe Hamelin]

I've used digi.com before, does the job.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474

Verizon wireless (cdma/LTE) compatible ethernet connectable OOB access device.

[Eric J Esslinger]

We have Verizon Wireless as our provider of choice for our company, and I've 
convinced those who are they that I need a completely OOB method for getting 
back in the NOC, as we don't have a full time NOC staff and internet coverage 
can be spotty around here in general, as we're a small town.

The people who need the OOB management access are getting 4G Myfi devices with 
static IP addresses. What I need at our NOC is a 3 or 4G (our area only has 3G 
atm) Verizon compatible device with an wired ethernet link. I'm looking at 
several but wondered if anyone has any familiarity with such units. I just need 
a basic wwan-ethernet modem/bridge, I will be handling vpn termination, 
firewalling, access control, and such with my existing firewall.

Off-list is fine.

__
Eric Esslinger
Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities
http://www.fpu-tn.com/
(931)433-1522 ext 165

This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is 
intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by 
others is strictly prohibited.

RE: Verizon wireless (cdma/LTE) compatible ethernet connectable OOB access device.

[David Hubbard]

OpenGear's stuff is awesome.

http://opengear.com/product-acm5000-g.html

We have the 5004G on Verizon, it has four serial ports,
ethernet and USB running linux.  We have a 5 gig plan
from Verizon and static IP for $50/month minus our
corporate discount.  Since it's put on a 'machine' plan
with them, you can get plans all the way down to I
think $5/month with a few megabytes of included data;
they treat it the same way you'd treat a cell backup
for an alarm and similar devices.

You can have the OpenGear unit keep the data portion of
the cellular side always live, or for added security and
lower risk of data consumption by drive by scans, you
can have it turn the data off and on by sending it text
messages to the associated phone number.

You can ssh directly to serial ports by using different
port numbers than standard, ssh in and then utilize the
ports, there's a web-based serial interface too so they're
really great for routers.  On the ethernet/web side you
can do things like vpn gateway, proxying, port mapping,
etc like you'd find in a typical consumer type soho
router, or you can lock it all down for whatever you 
don't need.

My only complaint is no LTE version last I checked,
which is fine for serial ports but an LTE would make
it a lot nicer since then you could do more interactive
things like remote desktop, heavy web traffic and other
things that you might also want in a bind.

David

 -Original Message-
 From: Eric J Esslinger [mailto:eesslin...@fpu-tn.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:47 PM
 To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
 Subject: Verizon wireless (cdma/LTE) compatible ethernet 
 connectable OOB access device.
 
 We have Verizon Wireless as our provider of choice for our 
 company, and I've convinced those who are they that I need a 
 completely OOB method for getting back in the NOC, as we 
 don't have a full time NOC staff and internet coverage can be 
 spotty around here in general, as we're a small town.
 
 The people who need the OOB management access are getting 4G 
 Myfi devices with static IP addresses. What I need at our NOC 
 is a 3 or 4G (our area only has 3G atm) Verizon compatible 
 device with an wired ethernet link. I'm looking at several 
 but wondered if anyone has any familiarity with such units. I 
 just need a basic wwan-ethernet modem/bridge, I will be 
 handling vpn termination, firewalling, access control, and 
 such with my existing firewall.
 
 Off-list is fine.
 
 __
 Eric Esslinger
 Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities
 http://www.fpu-tn.com/
 (931)433-1522 ext 165
 
 This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary 
 information and is intended for the person/entity to whom it 
 was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited.
 
 
 

Re: Verizon wireless (cdma/LTE) compatible ethernet connectable OOB access device.

[Asaf Rapoport]

OpenGear does make good, low footprint, low power consumption console
servers.
I think they have an IPSec stack too.
Note: They make another type with just a modem (I don't know why they
don't make one with both 3G and dialup?), in case the cell coverage is so
spotty that you won't get what you really need.

Just my 2 cents.

On 11/7/12 3:02 PM, David Hubbard dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com wrote:

OpenGear's stuff is awesome.

http://opengear.com/product-acm5000-g.html

We have the 5004G on Verizon, it has four serial ports,
ethernet and USB running linux.  We have a 5 gig plan
from Verizon and static IP for $50/month minus our
corporate discount.  Since it's put on a 'machine' plan
with them, you can get plans all the way down to I
think $5/month with a few megabytes of included data;
they treat it the same way you'd treat a cell backup
for an alarm and similar devices.

You can have the OpenGear unit keep the data portion of
the cellular side always live, or for added security and
lower risk of data consumption by drive by scans, you
can have it turn the data off and on by sending it text
messages to the associated phone number.

You can ssh directly to serial ports by using different
port numbers than standard, ssh in and then utilize the
ports, there's a web-based serial interface too so they're
really great for routers.  On the ethernet/web side you
can do things like vpn gateway, proxying, port mapping,
etc like you'd find in a typical consumer type soho
router, or you can lock it all down for whatever you
don't need.

My only complaint is no LTE version last I checked,
which is fine for serial ports but an LTE would make
it a lot nicer since then you could do more interactive
things like remote desktop, heavy web traffic and other
things that you might also want in a bind.

David

 -Original Message-
 From: Eric J Esslinger [mailto:eesslin...@fpu-tn.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:47 PM
 To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
 Subject: Verizon wireless (cdma/LTE) compatible ethernet
 connectable OOB access device.
 
 We have Verizon Wireless as our provider of choice for our
 company, and I've convinced those who are they that I need a
 completely OOB method for getting back in the NOC, as we
 don't have a full time NOC staff and internet coverage can be
 spotty around here in general, as we're a small town.
 
 The people who need the OOB management access are getting 4G
 Myfi devices with static IP addresses. What I need at our NOC
 is a 3 or 4G (our area only has 3G atm) Verizon compatible
 device with an wired ethernet link. I'm looking at several
 but wondered if anyone has any familiarity with such units. I
 just need a basic wwan-ethernet modem/bridge, I will be
 handling vpn termination, firewalling, access control, and
 such with my existing firewall.
 
 Off-list is fine.
 
 __
 Eric Esslinger
 Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities
 http://www.fpu-tn.com/
 (931)433-1522 ext 165
 
 This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary
 information and is intended for the person/entity to whom it
 was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited.
 
 
 

Fwd: [IP] [warning: layer 8/9] Strange bedfellows, aka a joint statement from Verizon Wireless and Google

[tvest]

Interesting, curious... but meaningful?

To my mind Google's language seems to be focused on wireline issues,  
which I guess are probably quite a bit easier for Verizon Wireless to  
accommodate.
Conversely, VW's emphasis on continuing self-regulation of wireless  
access would seem to be of secondary importance, at best, to Google.


Does this mean that a future of combat over my (TCP) ports is  
somewhat less likely?
Does this mean that Google won't be offering me FTTH within the next  
2-3 years?


Inquiring minds take note!

TV

Begin forwarded message:


From: David Farber d...@farber.net
Date: October 22, 2009 7:27:48 AM EDT
To: ip i...@v2.listbox.com
Subject: [IP] Finding Common Ground on an Open Internet -  a joint  
statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt,  
CEO Google.

Reply-To: d...@farber.net

A Technology and Telecommunications Policy Blog
Thursday, October 22, 2009

Finding Common Ground on an Open Internet

The following is a joint statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon  
Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google.



Verizon and Google might seem unlikely bedfellows in the current  
debate

around network neutrality, or an open Internet. And while it's true we
do disagree quite strongly about certain aspects of government  
policy in

this area--such as whether mobile networks should even be part of the
discussion--there are many issues on which we agree. For starters we
both think it's essential that the Internet remains an unrestricted  
and

open platform--where people can access any content (so long as it's
legal), as well as the services and applications of their choice.



There are two key factors driving innovation on the web today. First  
is
the programming language of the Internet, which was designed over  
forty

years ago by engineers who wanted the freedom to communicate from any
computer, anywhere in the world. It enables Macs to talk to PCs,
Blackberry Storms to iPhones, the newest computers to the oldest
hardware on the planet across any kind of network--cable, DSL, fiber,
mobile, WiFi or even dial up.



Second, private investment is dramatically increasing broadband  
capacity
and the intelligence of networks, creating the infrastructure to  
support

ever more sophisticated applications.



As a result, however or wherever you access the Internet the people  
you

want to connect with can receive your message. There is no central
authority that can step in and prevent you from talking to someone  
else,

or that imposes rules prescribing what services should be available.



Transformative is an over-used word, especially in the tech sector.  
But

the Internet has genuinely changed the world. Consumers of all stripes
can decide which services they want to use and the companies they  
trust
to provide them. In addition, if you're an entrepreneur with a big  
idea,
you can launch your service online and instantly connect to an  
audience

of billions. You don't need advance permission to use the network.  At
the same time, network providers are free to develop new applications,
either on their own or in collaboration with others.



This kind of innovation without permission has changed the way we do
business forever, fueling unprecedented collaboration, creativity and
opportunity. And because America has been at the forefront of most of
these changes, we have disproportionately benefited in terms of  
economic

growth and job creation.



So, in conjunction with the Federal Communications Commission's  
national
plan to bring broadband to all Americans, we understand its decision  
to
start a debate about how best to protect and promote the openness of  
the

Internet. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has promised a thoughtful,
transparent decision-making process, and we look forward to taking  
part

in the analysis and discussion that is to follow. We believe this kind
of process can work, because as the two of us have debated these  
issues

we have found a number of basic concepts to agree on.



First, it's obvious that users should continue to have the final say
about their web experience, from the networks and software they use,  
to

the hardware they plug in to the Internet and the services they access
online. The Internet revolution has been people powered from the very
beginning, and should remain so. The minute that anyone, whether from
government or the private sector, starts to control how people use the
Internet, it is the beginning of the end of the Net as we know it.



Second, advanced and open networks are essential to the future
development of the Web. Policies that continue to provide incentives  
for

investment and innovation are a vital part of the debate we are now
beginning.



Third, the FCC's existing wireline broadband principles make clear  
that

users are in charge of all aspects of their Internet experience--from
access to apps and content. So we think it makes sense for the
Commission to establish

Verizon Wireless (AS22394) network engineering contact needed

[David Ulevitch]

I'm having some trouble reaching a capable network engineer who runs 
Verizon Wireless (AS22394).  The contact on the ARIN address space I 
have issues with does indeed pick up the phone but is not someone who is 
aware of what BGP is.


Additionally, VZW is not listed on the NOC contacts page hosted by our 
friend Jared.


If someone could put me in touch with a warm body, I'd be much obliged.

Thanks,
David

RE: Verizon Wireless (AS22394) network engineering contact needed

[Brian R. Watters]

Stacey,

I will reply to these folks ..


--  

Brian Watters
Director
American Broadband Family of Companies  
5718 East Shields Ave
Fresno, CA. 93727   
brwatt...@absfoc.com
http://www.americanbroadbandservice.com
tel:559-420-0205
fax:559-272-5266
toll free:866-827-4638

-Original Message-
From: David Ulevitch [mailto:dav...@everydns.net] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 1:37 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Verizon Wireless (AS22394) network engineering contact needed

I'm having some trouble reaching a capable network engineer who runs 
Verizon Wireless (AS22394).  The contact on the ARIN address space I 
have issues with does indeed pick up the phone but is not someone who is 
aware of what BGP is.

Additionally, VZW is not listed on the NOC contacts page hosted by our 
friend Jared.

If someone could put me in touch with a warm body, I'd be much obliged.

Thanks,
David

Verizon Wireless Engineer

[Chandler Bassett]

Greetings,
Can a Verizon Engineer contact me off list in regards to their 3G Air Cards?
 Thanks much.

- Chandler

Contact for Verizon Wireless data

[Brielle Bruns]

Hello all,

Does anyone have a contact within Verizon Wireless data (ie: EV-DO) that 
could help with some... odd (for lack of a better word) connection 
problems from an EV-DO modem?


I think there may be some sort of packet filtering going on, but I can't 
tell for sure.  It's kinda annoying... I'm in Los Angeles on a trip, and 
I have to VPN back home just to work around the filtering.


Offlist would be great!  Thank you!

--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Matthias Leisi]

Mark Andrews schrieb:

   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.

OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity in the
world. Most of them try to be good citizens and do not waste a scarce
resource (IPv4 space).

If more providers would act like Verizon, we would have run out of IPv4
addresses a long time ago (whether or not that is a good or bad thing is
left as an exercise to the reader).

-- Matthias

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:31 PM, Matthias Leisi wrote:

Mark Andrews schrieb:


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.


OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity in  
the
world. Most of them try to be good citizens and do not waste a  
scarce

resource (IPv4 space).


You mean like the 10.x.x.x addresses give to all iPhones in the US?

Wait, I thought NAT was bad?  So who is the good citizen?

--
TTFN,
patrick


If more providers would act like Verizon, we would have run out of  
IPv4
addresses a long time ago (whether or not that is a good or bad  
thing is

left as an exercise to the reader).

-- Matthias

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Chuck Anderson]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
 Mark Andrews schrieb:
  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.
 
 OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity in the
 world. Most of them try to be good citizens and do not waste a scarce
 resource (IPv4 space).

I disagree that using global IPv4 space is a waste.  Every device 
deserves to have real internet connectivity and not this NAT crap.

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Dave Temkin]

Chuck Anderson wrote:

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
  

Mark Andrews schrieb:


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.
  

OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity in the
world. Most of them try to be good citizens and do not waste a scarce
resource (IPv4 space).



I disagree that using global IPv4 space is a waste.  Every device 
deserves to have real internet connectivity and not this NAT crap.


  
Why must it be always real versus NAT?  99% of users don't care one 
way or another.  Would it be so hard for the carrier to provide a switch 
between NAT and real IP if the user needs or wants it?

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:52:52 PST, Dave Temkin said:

 Why must it be always real versus NAT?  99% of users don't care one 
 way or another.  Would it be so hard for the carrier to provide a switch 
 between NAT and real IP if the user needs or wants it?

You're almost always better off not providing a user-accessible switch.
Especially not a shiny one labeled Do not touch unless you know what
you are doing.

(FWIW, this is exactly the same issue as block port 25 unless user requests
opt-out from the block)


pgpi6taC8ZGqT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:

Chuck Anderson wrote:

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:


Mark Andrews schrieb:


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.

OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity  
in the
world. Most of them try to be good citizens and do not waste a  
scarce

resource (IPv4 space).



I disagree that using global IPv4 space is a waste.  Every device  
deserves to have real internet connectivity and not this NAT crap.


Why must it be always real versus NAT?  99% of users don't care  
one way or another.  Would it be so hard for the carrier to provide  
a switch between NAT and real IP if the user needs or wants it?


Lots of providers do.  Sometimes the choice between static  dynamic  
is bundled with the choice between NAT  real on some broadband  
providers.


I've also seen hotels do it, and even charge extra for it.  (Yes, I  
paid. ;)


--
TTFN,
patrick

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Dave Temkin]

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:

Chuck Anderson wrote:

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:


Mark Andrews schrieb:


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.

OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity 
in the
world. Most of them try to be good citizens and do not waste a 
scarce

resource (IPv4 space).



I disagree that using global IPv4 space is a waste.  Every device 
deserves to have real internet connectivity and not this NAT crap.


Why must it be always real versus NAT?  99% of users don't care one 
way or another.  Would it be so hard for the carrier to provide a 
switch between NAT and real IP if the user needs or wants it?


Lots of providers do.  Sometimes the choice between static  dynamic 
is bundled with the choice between NAT  real on some broadband 
providers.


I've also seen hotels do it, and even charge extra for it.  (Yes, I 
paid. ;)


Exactly.  I've seen this as well in both instances but haven't seen it 
on mobile phones.  It's something so obscure that you're going to have 
to really want it to turn it on.  I don't think the Port 25 example 
holds much water here.


-Dave

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Scott Howard]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Dave Temkin dav...@gmail.com wrote:

 Exactly.  I've seen this as well in both instances but haven't seen it on
 mobile phones.  It's something so obscure that you're going to have to
 really want it to turn it on.  I don't think the Port 25 example holds much
 water here.


Many/most GSM/GPRS/etc operators will have multiple APN's - one which is
setup for NAT, and the other which gives a public IP address.

By default, most dumb phones will use the former. Data cards will use the
latter, and smartphones seem to be split between the two - although
obviously it will vary between providers.

  Scott.

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Ben Scott]

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
 Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular.

  My ancient and crufty Nextel iDEN i530 phone, manufactured circa
2003, with a monochrome 4-line text display, and about as dumb as
they get, gets assigned an IP address.  Now, that IP address is in
10/8, but the point is that not just smart phones get IP addresses.

  As to whether VZW needs public IP space for every phone -- I'll let
others handle the rampant speculation on that front.

-- Ben

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org wrote:


 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-assthere 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.


Plus the rest of their space, at least the easily identifiable portions.
It's extremely difficult to speculate what people are doing with large
amounts of addresses. I trust that ARIN has done the right thing in
accordance with community standards. V6 addresses included.

They may want to not recycle that template containing the comment again. It
showed up on the last two allocations.


Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK
(NET-66-174-0-0-1
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET-66-174-0-0-1)
66.174.0.0 http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=66.174.0.0 -
66.174.255.255 http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=66.174.255.255

Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK
(NET-69-82-0-0-1
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET-69-82-0-0-1)
69.82.0.0 http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=69.82.0.0 -
69.83.255.255 http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=69.83.255.255

Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK
(NET-69-96-0-0-1
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET-69-96-0-0-1)
69.96.0.0 http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=69.96.0.0 -
69.103.255.255 http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=69.103.255.255

Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK
(NET-70-192-0-0-1
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET-70-192-0-0-1)
70.192.0.0 http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=70.192.0.0 -
70.223.255.255 http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=70.223.255.255

Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK
(NET6-2001-4888-1
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET6-2001-4888-1)
2001:4888::::::
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=2001:4888::::::
- 2001:4888::::::
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=2001:4888::::::

Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK
(NET-97-128-0-0-1
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET-97-128-0-0-1)
97.128.0.0 http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=97.128.0.0 -
97.255.255.255 http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=97.255.255.255

Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK
(NET-174-192-0-0-1
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET-174-192-0-0-1)
174.192.0.0 http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=174.192.0.0 -
174.255.255.255 http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=174.255.255.255



Best,

Martin


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079

RE: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Holmes,David A]

We're not a big verizon wireless customer, (we have been allocated a /25
for remote data access devices). We run multi-homed BGP with vw. vw says
that they must advertise 48 summarized prefixes to us, instead of just
the /25. The 48 prefixes are apparently advertised to all of the
de-aggregated users contained in the summarized 48 prefixes. Is this a
common practice? If so is it a best practice?  

-Original Message-
From: Mike Leber [mailto:mle...@he.net] 
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 10:39 PM
To: David Conrad
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless


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, 
and so I just checked that.  Here is the answer to the question you 
didn't ask:

Top 1000 Usenet Servers in the World
list here: http://news.anthologeek.net/top1000.current.txt
details here: http://news.anthologeek.net

1000 usenet server names
913 are potentially valid hostnames (in usenet news a server name does 
necessarily correspond directly to a hostname)
722 have ipv4 address records (A)
67 have ipv6 address records ()
9.2% of the top 1000 usenet servers have added support for ipv6

I'm sure there are more this took exactly 183 seconds of work. ;)

Here they are:

feeder.erje.net 2001:470:992a::3e19:561
feeder4.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::4:1
news.dal.ca 2001:410:a010:1:214:5eff:fe0a:4a4e
news.nonexiste.net 2002:6009:93d5::1
nrc-news.nrc.ca 2001:410:9000:2::2
news.z74.net 2001:610:637:4::211
news.kjsl.com 2001:1868:204::104
npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net 2001:680:0:26::2
feeder6.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::6:1
feeder3.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::3:1
news.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::38
feeder2.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::2:1
feeder5.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::5:1
syros.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::17
vlad-tepes.bofh.it 2001:1418:13:1::5
news.stack.nl 2001:610:1108:5011:230:48ff:fe12:2794
ikarus.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::38
news.space.net 2001:608::1000:7
feed.news.tnib.de 2001:1b18:f:4::4
newsfeed.velia.net 2a01:7a0:3::254
news.isoc.lu 2001:a18:0:405:0:a0:456:1
ikaria.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::39
newsfeed.teleport-iabg.de 2001:1b10:100::119:1
news.tnib.de 2001:1b18:f:4::2
kanaga.switch.ch 2001:620:0:8::119:2
erode.bofh.it 2001:1418:13:1::3
irazu.switch.ch 2001:620:0:8::119:3
bofh.it 2001:1418:13::42
newsfeed.atman.pl 2001:1a68:0:4::2
news.mb-net.net 2a01:198:292:0:210:dcff:fe67:6b03
news.gnuher.de 2a01:198:293::2
switch.ch 2001:620:0:1b::b
news.k-dsl.de 2a02:7a0:1::5
news.task.gda.pl 2001:4070:1::fafe
news1.tnib.de 2001:1b18:f:4::2
aspen.stu.neva.ru 2001:b08:2:100::96
novso.com 2001:1668:2102:4::4
citadel.nobulus.com 2001:6f8:892:6ff::11:133
feeder.news.heanet.ie 2001:770:18:2::c101:db29
news-zh.switch.ch 2001:620:0:3::119:1
news.szn.dk 2001:1448:89::10:d85d
news.litech.org 2001:440:fff9:100:202:b3ff:fea4:a44e
news.weisnix.org 2001:6f8:892:6ff:213:8fff:febb:bec3
news.panservice.it 2001:40d0:0:4000::e
nntp.eutelia.it 2001:750:2:3::20
bolzen.all.de 2001:bf0::60
newsfeed.esat.net 2001:7c8:3:1::3
news.snarked.org 2607:f350:1::1:4
feed1.news.be.easynet.net 2001:6f8:200:2::5:46
aotearoa.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::58
news.babsi.de 2a01:198:292:0:230:48ff:fe51:a68c
news.muc.de 2001:608:1000::2
newsfeed.carnet.hr 2001:b68:e160::3
news.nask.pl 2001:a10:1:::3:c9a2
news.linuxfan.it 2001:4c90:2::6
texta.sil.at 2001:858:2:1::2
news.stupi.se 2001:440:1880:5::10
news.supermedia.pl 2001:4c30:0:3::12
news.trigofacile.com 2001:41d0:1:6d44::1
nuzba.szn.dk 2001:6f8:1232::263:8546
geiz-ist-geil.priv.at 2001:858:666:f001::57
newsfeed.sunet.se 2001:6b0:7:88::101
news.pimp.lart.info 2001:6f8:9ed::1
glou.fr.eu.org 2001:838:30b::1
news.germany.com 2001:4068:101:119:1::77
feeder.z74.net 2001:610:637:4::211
news.nask.org.pl 2001:a10:1:::3:c9a2

Mike.

-- 
+ H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C +
| Mike LeberWholesale IPv4 and IPv6 Transit  510 580 4100 |
| Hurricane Electric   AS6939 |
| mle...@he.net Internet Backbone  Colocation  http://he.net |
+-+

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[James Hess]

 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
 Comment:subscribers with 2.097 Million IP addresses allocated.
 RegDate:2008-04-14

If they have immediately allocated  2.097 million out of 8.388
million,  then they
have satisfied the 25% immediate utilization requirement.

In fact, 2.097 million is exactly how many they would need immediate
use for in order to justify an allocation of 8 million IPs according
to ARIN policy.


I expect the 2.097 million figure applies only to this particular
range, this comment in whois does
not indicate that Verizon has _only_  assigned that many across all
its various ranges;  I would fully expect they have massively more
IPs in use.

I would expect ARIN would have followed policy, and so Verizon had to
show to ARIN their well-founded
projection  that within one year, at least 50% of the new assignment
would be allocated.

And also that they met the additional requirements for ISPs;  80%
utilization over all previous
allocations, and also 80% of their most recent allocation.


--
-Jimmy

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Eliot Lear]

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% and 50% within two years, respectively.  Here's 
an article you might find interesting about the U.S. domestic market, 
and it may help you calculate what sort of growth rate we can expect in 
the future, when combined with both of the above numbers.  Put another 
way, the news is bad, but there is a cap on growth.


http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2008/09/29/story10.html

Eliot

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Joel Esler]

Exactly.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com 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 time.
 
  The numbers I keep seeing for so-called smartphones in the press for
  U.S. and Europe are 49% and 50% within two years, respectively.  Here's
  an article you might find interesting about the U.S. domestic market,
  and it may help you calculate what sort of growth rate we can expect in
  the future, when combined with both of the above numbers.  Put another
  way, the news is bad, but there is a cap on growth.

 We live in rather sad times if, subscriber, arpu and internet usage
 growth is considered bad news.

 
 http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2008/09/29/story10.html
 
  Eliot
 

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Leo Bicknell]

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 company as well, and you'll see some
of these blocks leave their name soon.  It could also be that AllTel
had a much lower percentage of subscribers using data, and Verizon
is fixing to change that soon.

With the merger complete Verizon Wireless will have 83.7 million
subscribers (per the article).  I see 27,371,520 IP's in all their
advertised blocks now, add in the 8,388,608 they just got, for a
total of 35,760,128.  If we assume across all blocks they can get
80% USAGE efficiency (which would surprise me) that's enough IP's to
feed data to 28,608,102 subs.  That would mean they can serve about
34% of their customers with data.

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 things like ring tones.  They use an IP on the network.

By the same math they have 55.1 million (83.7 million subs - 28.6
they can serve now) they can't serve data to yet, and using the
same 80% effiency that will take another 68.9 million addresses to
do that.  A /6 has 67.1 million addresses, so I suspect you'll see
over time another /6, or two /7's, or four /8's, or eight /9's...

Which leaves us with two take aways:

1) The comment is weird.

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.  At this point it
   would only take eight companies the size of verizon wireless to
   exhaust the free pool WORLDWIDE.  No matter how much effort we put
   into reclaiming IPv4 space there's just no way to keep up with new
   demand.

Is your network IPv6 enabled yet?

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpWqMD1lgDsF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Alexander Harrowell]

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 things like ring tones.  They use an IP on the network.


Alternatively, Verizon is planning to build an all-IP NGN architecture in
the near future, or is at least providing for the possibility of building
one. Mobilkom Austria, for example, has done a deal with Fring to put their
SIP VoIP client on handsets and serve their voice traffic over IP. In that
case, you'd need IP addresses for all the people who use VOICE.

You can do ringtones and the like through USSD...but there's no escape from
voice.

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Brandon Butterworth]

 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 matter how much effort we put
into reclaiming IPv4 space there's just no way to keep up with new
demand.

If they were allowed to. At some point I hope (I've heard the RIRs are
making plans) they'll be told no, you can't roll out something that big
as v4, that's enough infrastructure you can afford to build it as v6,
the rest of the v4 is now only for smaller necessary v4 use.

What is necessary v4 and the v6 only threshold can now be argued over
while everyone else gets on with building v6 or big v4 NATs

brandon

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Steven M. Bellovin]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:45:51 +0100
Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com 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 screen,
  read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP browse,
  or to fetch things like ring tones.  They use an IP on the network.
 
 
 The term is ill defined, but the general connotation is that they
 will be supplanting dumb phones.  So say what you will,phones with IP 
 addresses is likely to increase as a percentage of the installed
 base. The only thing offsetting that is the indication that the U.S.
 is saturating on total # of cell phones, which is what that article
 says.
 
Of course, my iPhone is currently showing an IP address in 10/8, and
though my EVDO card shows a global address in 70.198/16, I can't ssh to
it -- a TCP traceroute appears to be blocked at the border of Verizon
Wireless' network.  But hey, at least I can ping it.  (Confirmed by
tcpdump on my laptop: the pings are not being spoofed by a border
router.)


--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Aaron Glenn]

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote:
 Whatever happened to NAT?

 Jeff

NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
speaking-from-assthere should be a FOIA-like method to see large
allocation justifications/ass

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Jeff S Wheeler]

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-assthere 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.

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

RE: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Buhrmaster, Gary]

 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 the ARIN policy process and work to change them.

  Mailing lists:

  arin-p...@arin.net

  Open to the general public. Provides a forum to
  raise and discuss policy-related ideas and issues
  surrounding existing and proposed ARIN policies.
  The PPML list is an intrinsic part of ARIN's Policy
  Development Process (PDP), which details how
  proposed policies are handled.

http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Mark Andrews]

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-assthere 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

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Aaron Glenn]

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org 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 period'),
when will they? I don't presume to speak for everyone who immediately
felt that tinge of surprise at reading of a /9 being allocated, but
the blame is being laid on vzw not doing something other than 'can we
have a /9 please?' --not ARIN and/or it's policies (another mailing
list, duly noted)

RE: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Frank Bulk]

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 08, 2009 3:58 PM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:45:51 +0100
Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com 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 screen,
  read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP browse,
  or to fetch things like ring tones.  They use an IP on the network.
 

 The term is ill defined, but the general connotation is that they
 will be supplanting dumb phones.  So say what you will,phones with IP
 addresses is likely to increase as a percentage of the installed
 base. The only thing offsetting that is the indication that the U.S.
 is saturating on total # of cell phones, which is what that article
 says.

Of course, my iPhone is currently showing an IP address in 10/8, and
though my EVDO card shows a global address in 70.198/16, I can't ssh to
it -- a TCP traceroute appears to be blocked at the border of Verizon
Wireless' network.  But hey, at least I can ping it.  (Confirmed by
tcpdump on my laptop: the pings are not being spoofed by a border
router.)


--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[David Conrad]

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

RE: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Skywing]

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 friendly protocols like IPsec on their 
(targeted-for-business primarily not iPhone smartphones).  (Yeah, there's 
IPsec NAT-T, which I've seen fall flat on its face countless times.)

Breaking that sort of connectivity is likely to be hard to swallow for some 
nontrivial portion of some of their customers.

- S


-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 10:48 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

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 08, 2009 3:58 PM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:45:51 +0100
Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com 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 screen,
  read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP browse,
  or to fetch things like ring tones.  They use an IP on the network.
 

 The term is ill defined, but the general connotation is that they
 will be supplanting dumb phones.  So say what you will,phones with IP
 addresses is likely to increase as a percentage of the installed
 base. The only thing offsetting that is the indication that the U.S.
 is saturating on total # of cell phones, which is what that article
 says.

Of course, my iPhone is currently showing an IP address in 10/8, and
though my EVDO card shows a global address in 70.198/16, I can't ssh to
it -- a TCP traceroute appears to be blocked at the border of Verizon
Wireless' network.  But hey, at least I can ping it.  (Confirmed by
tcpdump on my laptop: the pings are not being spoofed by a border
router.)


--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

RE: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Skywing]

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 necessarily going to be broadcast to the entire world.  
Especially after the earlier thread via customer IPv6 rollouts by ISPs, I think 
it should be fairly evident that there can be nontrivial backend plumbing 
work needed to get things IPv6 ready, not all of which is necessarily going to 
be inherently customer-visible for all stages of progress.

- S


-Original Message-
From: Aaron Glenn [mailto:aaron.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 10:37 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org 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 period'),
when will they? I don't presume to speak for everyone who immediately
felt that tinge of surprise at reading of a /9 being allocated, but
the blame is being laid on vzw not doing something other than 'can we
have a /9 please?' --not ARIN and/or it's policies (another mailing
list, duly noted)

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Paul Wall]

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Aaron Glenn aaron.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
 NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
 speaking-from-assthere should be a FOIA-like method to see large
 allocation justifications/ass

Probably because Verizon Business isn't using it, unless you count a
couple of lab GRE tunnels.

Drive Slow,
Paul Wall

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Paul Wall]

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz 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 that there is no current explanation for Verizon
 Wireless needing 27M IPs.

27 million IP addresses for 45 million customers with addressable
devices sounds well within ARIN's justification guidelines.

Just because most of your customers are trying to pull the wool over
ARIN's eyes doesn't mean Verizon is too. :)

Drive Slow,
Paul Wall

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Paul Wall pauldotw...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Aaron Glenn aaron.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
 NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
 speaking-from-assthere should be a FOIA-like method to see large
 allocation justifications/ass

 Probably because Verizon Business isn't using it, unless you count a
 couple of lab GRE tunnels.

so... actually... if you ask for v6 apparently vzb's deployment is
still moving along and is accessible for customers.

FiOS/DSL though is not :(

-Chris

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Mike Leber]

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, 
and so I just checked that.  Here is the answer to the question you 
didn't ask:


Top 1000 Usenet Servers in the World
list here: http://news.anthologeek.net/top1000.current.txt
details here: http://news.anthologeek.net

1000 usenet server names
913 are potentially valid hostnames (in usenet news a server name does 
necessarily correspond directly to a hostname)

722 have ipv4 address records (A)
67 have ipv6 address records ()
9.2% of the top 1000 usenet servers have added support for ipv6

I'm sure there are more this took exactly 183 seconds of work. ;)

Here they are:

feeder.erje.net 2001:470:992a::3e19:561
feeder4.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::4:1
news.dal.ca 2001:410:a010:1:214:5eff:fe0a:4a4e
news.nonexiste.net 2002:6009:93d5::1
nrc-news.nrc.ca 2001:410:9000:2::2
news.z74.net 2001:610:637:4::211
news.kjsl.com 2001:1868:204::104
npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net 2001:680:0:26::2
feeder6.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::6:1
feeder3.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::3:1
news.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::38
feeder2.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::2:1
feeder5.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::5:1
syros.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::17
vlad-tepes.bofh.it 2001:1418:13:1::5
news.stack.nl 2001:610:1108:5011:230:48ff:fe12:2794
ikarus.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::38
news.space.net 2001:608::1000:7
feed.news.tnib.de 2001:1b18:f:4::4
newsfeed.velia.net 2a01:7a0:3::254
news.isoc.lu 2001:a18:0:405:0:a0:456:1
ikaria.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::39
newsfeed.teleport-iabg.de 2001:1b10:100::119:1
news.tnib.de 2001:1b18:f:4::2
kanaga.switch.ch 2001:620:0:8::119:2
erode.bofh.it 2001:1418:13:1::3
irazu.switch.ch 2001:620:0:8::119:3
bofh.it 2001:1418:13::42
newsfeed.atman.pl 2001:1a68:0:4::2
news.mb-net.net 2a01:198:292:0:210:dcff:fe67:6b03
news.gnuher.de 2a01:198:293::2
switch.ch 2001:620:0:1b::b
news.k-dsl.de 2a02:7a0:1::5
news.task.gda.pl 2001:4070:1::fafe
news1.tnib.de 2001:1b18:f:4::2
aspen.stu.neva.ru 2001:b08:2:100::96
novso.com 2001:1668:2102:4::4
citadel.nobulus.com 2001:6f8:892:6ff::11:133
feeder.news.heanet.ie 2001:770:18:2::c101:db29
news-zh.switch.ch 2001:620:0:3::119:1
news.szn.dk 2001:1448:89::10:d85d
news.litech.org 2001:440:fff9:100:202:b3ff:fea4:a44e
news.weisnix.org 2001:6f8:892:6ff:213:8fff:febb:bec3
news.panservice.it 2001:40d0:0:4000::e
nntp.eutelia.it 2001:750:2:3::20
bolzen.all.de 2001:bf0::60
newsfeed.esat.net 2001:7c8:3:1::3
news.snarked.org 2607:f350:1::1:4
feed1.news.be.easynet.net 2001:6f8:200:2::5:46
aotearoa.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::58
news.babsi.de 2a01:198:292:0:230:48ff:fe51:a68c
news.muc.de 2001:608:1000::2
newsfeed.carnet.hr 2001:b68:e160::3
news.nask.pl 2001:a10:1:::3:c9a2
news.linuxfan.it 2001:4c90:2::6
texta.sil.at 2001:858:2:1::2
news.stupi.se 2001:440:1880:5::10
news.supermedia.pl 2001:4c30:0:3::12
news.trigofacile.com 2001:41d0:1:6d44::1
nuzba.szn.dk 2001:6f8:1232::263:8546
geiz-ist-geil.priv.at 2001:858:666:f001::57
newsfeed.sunet.se 2001:6b0:7:88::101
news.pimp.lart.info 2001:6f8:9ed::1
glou.fr.eu.org 2001:838:30b::1
news.germany.com 2001:4068:101:119:1::77
feeder.z74.net 2001:610:637:4::211
news.nask.org.pl 2001:a10:1:::3:c9a2

Mike.

--
+ H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C +
| Mike LeberWholesale IPv4 and IPv6 Transit  510 580 4100 |
| Hurricane Electric   AS6939 |
| mle...@he.net Internet Backbone  Colocation  http://he.net |
+-+

97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Jeff S Wheeler]

Dear list,

Since IPv4 exhaustion is an increasingly serious and timely topic
lately, I would like to point out something that interests me, and maybe
everyone else who will be spending a lot on Tylenol and booze when we
really do run out of v4 IPs.

I have trouble understanding why an ARIN record for a network regularly
receiving new, out-sized IPv4 allocations on the order of millions of
addresses at once would publish a remark like the one below, indicating
that Verizon Wireless has about 2 million IPs allocated.

OrgName:Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless 
CIDR:   97.128.0.0/9 
Comment:Verizon Wireless currently has 44.3 Million
Comment:subscribers with 2.097 Million IP addresses allocated.
RegDate:2008-04-14

This may be unscientific and full of error, but if you add up all the
IPs behind AS6167, you get a pretty big number, about 27 million.  If I
make more dangerous assumptions, I might argue that a network with a
need for 2 million IPs, at the time this /9 was handed out, already had
about 19 million.  Then it received 8 million more.

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.  But that isn't the case right now, and the ARIN is in the
business of supplying its members with six months worth of addresses.
If everyone is expected to run out and buy a new phone and start using
the Google right away, and stay on it all the time, maybe cellular
operators really need a lot more IP addresses.  If not, why does Verizon
Wireless have 27 million IPs when the above comment indicates they need
only a tenth of that?

- j

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Jeffrey Lyon]

Whatever happened to NAT?

Jeff

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
 Dear list,

 Since IPv4 exhaustion is an increasingly serious and timely topic
 lately, I would like to point out something that interests me, and maybe
 everyone else who will be spending a lot on Tylenol and booze when we
 really do run out of v4 IPs.

 I have trouble understanding why an ARIN record for a network regularly
 receiving new, out-sized IPv4 allocations on the order of millions of
 addresses at once would publish a remark like the one below, indicating
 that Verizon Wireless has about 2 million IPs allocated.

 OrgName:Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless
 CIDR:   97.128.0.0/9
 Comment:Verizon Wireless currently has 44.3 Million
 Comment:subscribers with 2.097 Million IP addresses allocated.
 RegDate:2008-04-14

 This may be unscientific and full of error, but if you add up all the
 IPs behind AS6167, you get a pretty big number, about 27 million.  If I
 make more dangerous assumptions, I might argue that a network with a
 need for 2 million IPs, at the time this /9 was handed out, already had
 about 19 million.  Then it received 8 million more.

 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.  But that isn't the case right now, and the ARIN is in the
 business of supplying its members with six months worth of addresses.
 If everyone is expected to run out and buy a new phone and start using
 the Google right away, and stay on it all the time, maybe cellular
 operators really need a lot more IP addresses.  If not, why does Verizon
 Wireless have 27 million IPs when the above comment indicates they need
 only a tenth of that?

 - j






-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc.

Look for us at HostingCon 2009 in Washington, DC on August 10th - 12th
at Booth #401.

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Tim Eberhard]

Any cell phone that uses data service to download a ringtone, wallpaper,
picature, use their TV/radio webcast service, or their walkie talkie feature
will use an IP address.

In addition to that Verizon wireless sells their EVDO aircards for laptops.

Given the size of their customer base it is not shocking that they have 27
million IP addresses in their pool. ARIN doesn't just give them away it
would be up to Verizon to prove that they are utilizing 90+% before they
could be alloted any additional IP's.

 Hope this helps explain things a little bit.

-Tim Eberhard


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.  But that isn't the case right now, and the ARIN is in the
 business of supplying its members with six months worth of addresses.
 If everyone is expected to run out and buy a new phone and start using
 the Google right away, and stay on it all the time, maybe cellular
 operators really need a lot more IP addresses.  If not, why does Verizon
 Wireless have 27 million IPs when the above comment indicates they need
 only a tenth of that?

 - j

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:

 Dear list,

 Since IPv4 exhaustion is an increasingly serious and timely topic
 lately, I would like to point out something that interests me, and maybe
 everyone else who will be spending a lot on Tylenol and booze when we
 really do run out of v4 IPs.

 I have trouble understanding why an ARIN record for a network regularly
 receiving new, out-sized IPv4 allocations on the order of millions of
 addresses at once would publish a remark like the one below, indicating
 that Verizon Wireless has about 2 million IPs allocated.

 OrgName:Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless
 CIDR:   97.128.0.0/9
 Comment:Verizon Wireless currently has 44.3 Million
 Comment:subscribers with 2.097 Million IP addresses allocated.
 RegDate:2008-04-14


Why don't you try asking them?

OrgTechHandle: 
MGE16-ARINhttp://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=P%20%21%20MGE16-ARIN
OrgTechName: George, Matt
OrgTechPhone: +1-908-306-7000
OrgTechEmail: ab...@verizonwireless.com