[194007] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Constantine A. Murenin)
Thu Mar 9 00:31:19 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <020b42e1-9a7e-5cfc-0b9a-e441a1990c77@meetinghouse.net>
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 23:31:15 -0600
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Cc: "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst++@freebsd.org>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 08/03/2017, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> Seems to me that the only people who get static, wireless, IP addresses
> are people who put sensors on vehicles and IoT applications. Who gets a
> static IP for a phone? This might cause some serious heartburn for my
> previous employer - who built CAD systems for transit buses.
>
> Miles Fidelman
With how much memory and processing power any modern
internet-connected device has, plus the ever ubiquitous cloud, I don't
understand why IoT, especially non-consumer-grade IoT, should have any
need for public IPv4 addresses.
Even if you have a very legacy app, and IPsec is too complex for your
needs, doing an SSH session with OpenSSH and its port forwarding
feature is just too simple to pass up. http://mdoc.su/o/ssh.1
I mean, come on, if malware vendors have no need for public IP
addresses to take control of your IoT and perform C&C, you're clearly
doing something wrong if your own shit doesn't work without it.
Cheers,
http://Constantine.SU/
