On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Dave Temkin 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.
Ma
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 d
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
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 p
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 functionalit
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
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
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
gated 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 ve
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Mark Andrews 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?
> > > there should be
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Jeff S Wheeler 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
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,
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Aaron Glenn wrote:
>> NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
>> there should be a FOIA-like method to see large
>> allocation justifications
>
> Probably because Verizon Business isn't using
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> What services require an IP, whether they can be supplied via NAT, how
> soon "smart phone" adoption will bring IP to every handset ... all these
> are good and valid points. However, they all distract from the glaring
> and obvious reality
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Aaron Glenn wrote:
> NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
> there should be a FOIA-like method to see large
> allocation justifications
Probably because Verizon Business isn't using it, unless you count a
couple of lab GRE tunnels.
Drive
ch 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,
e 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
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
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 wrote:
> On 2/8/09 5:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > Lastly, you've assumed that only a "smart phone" (not that the
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>I don't see any reason to complain based on those numbers.
>It's just a extremely high growth period due to technology
>change over bring in new functionality.
so if they don't deploy IPv6 then ('extremely high growth
In message <1234128761.17985.352.ca...@guardian.inconcepts.net>, Jeff S Wheeler
writes:
> On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:37 -0800, Aaron Glenn wrote:
> > NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
> > there should be a FOIA-like method to see large
> > allocation justifications
> Re
> 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
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:37 -0800, Aaron Glenn wrote:
> NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
> there should be a FOIA-like method to see large
> allocation justifications
Realistically, I suppose Verizon Wireless is big enough to dictate to
the manufacturers of handsets an
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
> Whatever happened to NAT?
>
> Jeff
NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6?
there should be a FOIA-like method to see large
allocation justifications
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:45:51 +0100
Eliot Lear wrote:
> On 2/8/09 5:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > Lastly, you've assumed that only a "smart phone" (not that the term
> > is well defined) needs an IP address. I believe this is wrong.
> > There are plenty of simpler phones (e.g. not a PDA, touch s
On 2/8/09 5:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Lastly, you've assumed that only a "smart phone" (not that the term
is well defined) needs an IP address. I believe this is wrong.
There are plenty of simpler phones (e.g. not a PDA, touch screen,
read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP br
> 2) If one company is likely to need four more /8's, and there are now
>32 in the free pool man is IPv4 in trouble.
It's going to happen soon enough anyway.
>At this point it
>would only take eight companies the size of verizon wireless to
>exhaust the free pool WORLDWIDE. No ma
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
I have no personal knowledge of this situation, so this is wild
speculation.
http://news.cnet.com/verizon-completes-alltel-purchase/
Verizon Wireless is going to be soon selling operations in 105
markets. It may well be that the IP addresses for those markets
will be transfered to the new compa
Exactly.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> > On 2/8/09 3:24 AM, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> >> Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular. It's reasonable to assume
> >> that virtually all cell phones will eventually have an IP address almost
> >> all the
Eliot Lear wrote:
> On 2/8/09 3:24 AM, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
>> Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular. It's reasonable to assume
>> that virtually all cell phones will eventually have an IP address almost
>> all the time.
>
> The numbers I keep seeing for so-called "smartphones" in the pre
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
>> I have trouble understanding why an ARIN record for a network regularly
>> receiving new, out-sized IPv4 allocations on the order of millions of
>> OrgName:Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless
>> CIDR: 97.128.0.0/9
>> Comment:Verizon Wireless currently has 44.3 Million
>> Commen
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Jeff S Wheeler 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 r
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
Whatever happened to NAT?
Jeff
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Jeff S Wheeler 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
36 matches
Mail list logo
