184.108.40.206/9 allocation to verizon wireless
Patrick W. Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
Tue Feb 10 23:00:37 UTC 2009
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
>>> 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
I've also seen hotels do it, and even charge extra for it. (Yes, I
More information about the NANOG