[155815] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Seth Mattinen)
Thu Aug 23 13:59:00 2012
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:57:52 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <BA7CFCD2-6BE5-4788-AEBA-5AE1106F4172@puck.nether.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 8/23/12 7:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
>
>> How does one suddenly justify needing 1,000,000 more IP addresses (explosive expected growth in the next couple months?)
>
> I can easily see people moving through those IPs in short order if you have a datacenter or other deployment you are working on. I've heard stories from some of the popular sites about how they have consumed all the 'private' space for their internal-side servers/infrastructure so started to go after public IPs (in addition to IPv6) to workaround the problem.
>
> AT&T hasn't seen the wireline subscriber growth, but I'm sure their wireless side, datacenter, and other needs are driving growth.
>
I would really hope that wireless providers are planning for IPv6
instead, although a recent thread about Sprint LTE indicates maybe this
is wishful thinking. I know Verizon is but the single LTE MiFi I have
doesn't do IPv6, but I've seen customers with Verizon phones coming in
over IPv6.
~Seth
