"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
a.harrowell at gmail.com
Fri Feb 11 02:16:09 CST 2011
There are major GSM-land wireless operators who provide service to devices like Novatel's line of pocket-size WLAN hotspots.
You can just buy one and stick a SIM in it, but some of the ops offer them as part of a business user package. I hope that means they get a proper IP or more handed out from the SGSN, as otherwise this would be a true orgy of NAT.
(Top posting on mobile)
"Jack Bates" <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
>On 2/10/2011 9:11 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> I was explaining to my wife today how it felt like the nanog list
>went to 3x the typical mail volume recently with all the IPv6 stuff
>this month. Why the pro-IPv6 crowd was happy, the anti-IPv6 crowd is
>groaning (including those that truly despise the whole thing, etc..)
>I was having fun discussing with my wife how ARIN stuff ended up on
>NANOG, NANOG stuff ended up on PPML, and I've been listening and
>participating in debates concerning IPv6 and CGN (apparently BEHAVE WG
>adopted CGN over LSN) on 4 different mailing lists.
>To be honest, though. I'm pro-IPv6, but I'm not happy. Anyone who is
>happy doesn't care about those innocent people who are ignorant of what
>is going on and why.
>> I honestly think that the LSN situations won't be as bad as some of
>us think. The big carriers have already been doing some flavor of this
>with their cellular/data networks. Doing this on some of the consumer
>networks will likely not be "that much" pain. Obviously the pain will
>vary per subscriber/home.
><snip lots of good stuff I agree with>
>> IPv4 is "dead" in my opinion. Not dead as in useless, but to the
>point where I don't think there is value in spending a lot of time
>worrying about the v4 side of the world when so much needs to be fixed
>in IPv6 land.
>Service requirements in cellular networks are considerably different
>than wireline. Apparently, most cell customers don't hook a CPE router
>into their cell network and play their game consoles over it, along
>many other situations. This actually means that most often, they are
>running a single stage NAT44 LSN (which still breaks stuff, but most of
>the things it would break aren't normally transiting the cellular
><snip more good stuff I agree with>
>I agree. However, because the largest networks and corporations decided
>(and some still do) to wait until the last moment to deal with IPv6, we
>will have to deal with IPv4 in much worse conditions. I know that there
>are large cellular networks which use DoD bogons behind huge LSN
>implementations. I know that some networks apparently aren't happy with
>using DoD bogons and would like to waste even more space. The best
>solution for such a case (and to solve all arguments on the matter) is
>to secure assurances on the bogons so that they can be safely used.
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
More information about the NANOG