[152890] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Carpenter)
Tue May 22 23:05:22 2012
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 23:04:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaa5rkE9ga0E=o8+tunavTDZPttyN2f7eZurA90PZ1Z4pg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Randy Carpenter
> <rcarpen@network1.net> wrote:
> > I suppose they are selectively letting certain devices in some
> > areas. I get "der duh, what?" when I ask about it.
> >
>
> uhm... you asked someone at their kiosks/stores about ipv<anything>??
> you are a very, very brave man.
No... the Business technical support via telephone. They knew what I was talking about, but no idea about what VZW's plans are for it.
> > It certainly does not work on the iPad "3" in Ohio. Not only that,
> > but I can't even pay them to give me a stable IPv4 address,
> > because if you get a static IP, it disables the hotspot
> > functionality. Head-->Wall.
> >
>
> good times!! mobile carriers live in what seems like a very different
> world from the one the rest of the internet lives in :(
Tell me about it. I would settle for a stable IPv4 address (dynamic is fine, but a "lease" time of something closer to an hour, rather than 2 minutes)
-Randy
