126.96.36.199/9 allocation to verizon wireless
davet1 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 10 22:52:52 UTC 2009
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?
More information about the NANOG