[111702] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Feb 10 18:01:00 2009
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <49920544.6@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:00:37 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> Chuck Anderson wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Andrews schrieb:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity
>>> in the
>>> world. Most of them try to be "good citizens" and do not waste a
>>> scarce
>>> resource (IPv4 space).
>>>
>>
>> I disagree that using global IPv4 space is a "waste". Every device
>> deserves to have "real" internet connectivity and not this NAT crap.
>>
> Why must it be always "real" versus NAT? 99% of users don't care
> one way or another. Would it be so hard for the carrier to provide
> a switch between NAT and "real" IP if the user needs or wants it?
Lots of providers do. Sometimes the choice between static & dynamic
is bundled with the choice between NAT & "real" on some broadband
providers.
I've also seen hotels do it, and even charge extra for it. (Yes, I
paid. ;)
--
TTFN,
patrick
