97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

Frank Bulk frnkblk at iname.com
Sun Feb 8 21:47:37 CST 2009


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:smb at cs.columbia.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 3:58 PM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:45:51 +0100
Eliot Lear <lear at 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






More information about the NANOG mailing list