[111596] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Skywing)
Sun Feb 8 23:22:41 2009
From: Skywing <Skywing@valhallalegends.com>
To: Aaron Glenn <aaron.glenn@gmail.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 22:22:29 -0600
In-Reply-To: <18f601940902081937u7e71244ai430612b4044a5fdf@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I think that you've got a bit of a logic fault here. You seem to be assumi=
ng that because you can't find any external any sign of Verizon preparing f=
or IPv6, that they're definitely not doing so.
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't (your -guess- is as good as mine), but th=
at process is not necessarily going to be broadcast to the entire world. E=
specially after the earlier thread via customer IPv6 rollouts by ISPs, I th=
ink it should be fairly evident that there can be nontrivial "backend" plum=
bing work needed to get things IPv6 ready, not all of which is necessarily =
going to be inherently customer-visible for all stages of progress.
- S
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Glenn [mailto:aaron.glenn@gmail.com]=20
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 10:37 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
so if they don't deploy IPv6 then ('extremely high growth period'),
when will they? I don't presume to speak for everyone who immediately
felt that tinge of surprise at reading of a /9 being allocated, but
the blame is being laid on vzw not doing something other than 'can we
have a /9 please?' --not ARIN and/or it's policies (another mailing
list, duly noted)
