[111595] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Skywing)
Sun Feb 8 23:19:36 2009
From: Skywing <Skywing@valhallalegends.com>
To: "frnkblk@iname.com" <frnkblk@iname.com>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 22:19:20 -0600
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAAAwUrVFtCAaQ7plnYlcrOmVAQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
For better or worse, Verizon hands out globally routable addresses for smar=
tphones. (Certainly, the one I've got has one.) They seem to come from th=
e same pool as data card links.
Note that I suspect that there's a nontrivial number of folk that are used =
to using some not quite really NAT friendly protocols like IPsec on their (=
targeted-for-business primarily <not iPhone> smartphones). (Yeah, there's =
IPsec NAT-T, which I've seen fall flat on its face countless times.)
Breaking that sort of connectivity is likely to be hard to swallow for some=
nontrivial portion of some of their customers.
- S
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnkblk@iname.com]=20
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 10:48 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless
This discussion about smartphones and the like was presuming that those
devices all received public IPs -- my experience has been more often than
not that they get RFC 1918 addresses.
Frank=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@cs.columbia.edu]=20
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 3:58 PM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless
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
