"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers

Fri Feb 11 08:16:09 UTC 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
>with 
>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
>networks).
>
><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.
>
>
>
>
>Jack

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.