In message <1234128761.17985.352.camel@guardian.inconcepts.net>, Jeff S Wheeler writes:
NAT? why isn't Verizon 'It's the Network' Wireless using IPv6? <speaking-from-ass>there should be a FOIA-like method to see large allocation justifications</ass> Realistically, I suppose Verizon Wireless is big enough to dictate to
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:37 -0800, Aaron Glenn wrote: the manufacturers of handsets and infrastructure, "you must support IPv6 by X date or we will no longer buy / sell your product." I wonder if any wireless carriers are doing this today?
What services require an IP, whether they can be supplied via NAT, how soon "smart phone" adoption will bring IP to every handset ... all these are good and valid points. However, they all distract from the glaring and obvious reality that there is no current explanation for Verizon Wireless needing 27M IPs.
Well it's a 8M allocation for current population of 2M with a 25M more potential handsets that will be upgraded soon. This looks to be consistent with how ARIN hands out other blocks of address space. Say on average that you replace a cell phone every three years. In 6 months there will be ~4M more addresses needed. 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. Mark
Does ARIN lack sufficient resources to vet jumbo requests?
Did Verizon Wireless benefit from favoritism?
Is Barack Obama concerned that his blackberry will not function if Verizon one day runs out of v4 addresses for its customers?
- j
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org