97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at ianai.net
Tue Feb 10 17:00:37 CST 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  
>>> 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?

Lots of providers do.  Sometimes the choice between static & dynamic  
is bundled with the choice between NAT & "real" on some broadband  
providers.

I've also seen hotels do it, and even charge extra for it.  (Yes, I  
paid. ;)

-- 
TTFN,
patrick





More information about the NANOG mailing list