cb.list6 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 28 13:16:49 CST 2010
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
> On 12/28/10 10:35 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>> FWIW, the same does not appear to be true of the Verizon 3G network. (Not
>> that anyone expected it to be.) My VZW device has a NATted v4 address and
>> only link-local v6.
> lack of a chipset support is a notable problem there....
My guess is that VZW 3G will never have IPv6 support.
But, it appears that anything they label as 4G or LTE will be IPv6
enabled on day 0 for all devices designed to operate on that network.
This is a very very good thing, if i understand it correctly. I also
assume that the 4G devices that have fallen back to 3G network will
not have IPv6 while attached to 3G, only 4G. The reason i say this is
that VZW is doing all the device management in 4G via IMS, which is
IPv6-only in their implementation..... so 4G attached devices must be
v6 to receive management functions, like over the air updates.
The next functional question, is the services on the google whitelist
so that it starts to move some real IPv6 traffic? The T-Mobile beta
is on the Google whitelist and it makes a big different WRT to real
IPv6 traffic in a meaningful volume being sent on the network
>> On Dec 28, 2010 1:26 PM, "Cameron Byrne" <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:15 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:49:37 E...
>> Just to update the group, a helpful person sent me a screenshot of the
>> VZW LTE connection manager, and it does indeed have a public IPv6
>> address an a 10.x.x.x IPv4 address. So, true to claim, the new LTE
>> service available today on USB sticks is production dual-stack.
More information about the NANOG