[111584] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Sun Feb 8 16:58:27 2009
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 16:58:17 -0500
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <498F528F.70809@cisco.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:45:51 +0100
Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/09 5:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > Lastly, you've assumed that only a "smart phone" (not that the term
> > is well defined) needs an IP address. I believe this is wrong.
> > There are plenty of simpler phones (e.g. not a PDA, touch screen,
> > read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP browse,
> > or to fetch things like ring tones. They use an IP on the network.
> >
>
> The term is ill defined, but the general connotation is that they
> will be supplanting dumb phones. So say what you will,phones with IP
> addresses is likely to increase as a percentage of the installed
> base. The only thing offsetting that is the indication that the U.S.
> is saturating on total # of cell phones, which is what that article
> says.
>
Of course, my iPhone is currently showing an IP address in 10/8, and
though my EVDO card shows a global address in 70.198/16, I can't ssh to
it -- a TCP traceroute appears to be blocked at the border of Verizon
Wireless' network. But hey, at least I can ping it. (Confirmed by
tcpdump on my laptop: the pings are not being spoofed by a border
router.)
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
