Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early- So much for next generation technology ... CB
On Jul 17, 2012 7:54 PM, "Cameron Byrne" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next generation technology ...
No IPv6, and using duplicate IPv4 space. #sigh #fail /TJ
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote:
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
Short-sighted and foolish. Shame on you, Sprint. jms
So some "comments" on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there? --Andrey
Even if they did OK it (which i doubt), actually using it - especially in a public/customer facing / visible deployment - is a Bad Idea. *Traceability fail and possibly creating unreachable networks out there ...* /TJ On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov < khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com> wrote:
So some "comments" on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there?
--Andrey
I am on sprint and my ip is always in the 20. net even though my wan up is totally different. Grant On Wednesday, July 18, 2012, TJ wrote:
Even if they did OK it (which i doubt), actually using it - especially in a public/customer facing / visible deployment - is a Bad Idea. *Traceability fail and possibly creating unreachable networks out there ...*
/TJ
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov < khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
So some "comments" on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there?
--Andrey
So some "comments" on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out
I disagree. I see it as an extra layer of security. If DOD had a network with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised to the outside. It never interacts with public network. Having it duplicated on the outside world adds an extra layer of complexity to a hacker trying to access it. It's not a be-all/end-all, but it's a plus. A hacker who's partially in the network may try to access network 'X', but it routes to the outside world, tripping IDSs... Chuck -----Original Message----- From: TJ [mailto:trejrco@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:36 PM To: Andrey Khomyakov Cc: Nanog Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Even if they did OK it (which i doubt), actually using it - especially in a public/customer facing / visible deployment - is a Bad Idea. *Traceability fail and possibly creating unreachable networks out there ...* /TJ On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov < khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com> wrote: there?
--Andrey
Subject: RE: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Date: Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36:31PM -0400 Quoting Chuck Church (chuckchurch@gmail.com):
I disagree. I see it as an extra layer of security. If DOD had a network with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised to the outside. It never interacts with public network. Having it duplicated on the outside world adds an extra layer of complexity to a hacker trying to access it. It's not a be-all/end-all, but it's a plus. A hacker who's partially in the network may try to access network 'X', but it routes to the outside world, tripping IDSs...
Then DoD should go for using something like the v6 documentation prefix or similar. It both is in many peoples filters and (as referenced here recently) is being used for stuff that "never" (promise! or at least not until we change our minds) is going to need connectivity. I do not see DoD handing back its allocations in the name of promoting unreachability by swapping it for reusable space.. It probably values the uniqueness property of allocated space too much. And rightly so. No, reusing somebody's prefix is A Very Bad Idea. I'm having a very hard time believing the alleged "ok" is anything but cheap talk. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 The Osmonds! You are all Osmonds!! Throwing up on a freeway at dawn!!!
On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
No, reusing somebody's prefix is A Very Bad Idea.
Concur 100%. There is no security value to doing this whatsoever - quite the opposite, given the possible negative consequences to reachability and, thus, availability. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
It is not about security. It is about finding enough bits to service 7 digits number of subs. yi -----Original Message----- From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobbins@arbor.net] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:19 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
No, reusing somebody's prefix is A Very Bad Idea.
Concur 100%. There is no security value to doing this whatsoever - quite the opposite, given the possible negative consequences to reachability and, thus, availability. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote:
It is not about security. It is about finding enough bits to service 7 digits number of subs.
IPv6 takes care of that problem quite effectively :) If there is a major amount of gear in the network that will not support IPv6 (apply bat to vendor as appropriate), then I can understand going down the road of IPv4 + CGN, but I would consider that to be an absolute last resort. Not much upside, lots of downside. jms
-----Original Message----- From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobbins@arbor.net] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:19 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
No, reusing somebody's prefix is A Very Bad Idea.
Concur 100%. There is no security value to doing this whatsoever - quite the opposite, given the possible negative consequences to reachability and, thus, availability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.
-- John Milton
________________________________
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36:31PM -0400, Chuck Church wrote:
I disagree. I see it as an extra layer of security. If DOD had a network with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised to the outside. It never interacts with public network. Having it duplicated on the outside
world adds an extra layer of complexity to a hacker trying to access it. It's not a be-all/end-all, but it's a plus. A hacker who's partially in the network may try to access network 'X', but it routes to the outside world, tripping IDSs...
Chuck
Never is a -very- long time. That said, -IF- DoD did authorize another party/contractor to utilize some DoD address blocks, its not clear if that LOA would be public. /bill
So some "comments" on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there? The arpanet prefix(10/8) was returned to IANA circa 1990 it's now RFC
On 7/18/12 6:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote: 1918. everything else is urban myth.
--Andrey
* Cameron Byrne
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next generation technology ...
Yesterday, Telenor launched LTE. So. With a green-field deployment, in their home market (supposed to be the first of their tree-digit million subscribers world-wide to get all the cool new tech), built on 3GPP specs that fully supports IPv6, already proven to work by other pioneers (^5 VzW), for which there are plenty of compatible devices (again, ^5 VzW), and plenty of compatible content (^5 ISOC, et al.), four months after World IPv6 Launch (in which they participated), and one month after their RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses...launching without IPv6 support was a perfectly natural and sensible thing for them to do, it seems. *sigh* -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
So. With a green-field deployment, in their home market (supposed to be the first of their tree-digit million subscribers world-wide to get all the cool new tech), built on 3GPP specs that fully supports IPv6, already proven to work by other pioneers (^5 VzW), for which there are plenty of compatible devices (again, ^5 VzW), and plenty of compatible content (^5 ISOC, et al.), four months after World IPv6 Launch (in which they participated), and one month after their RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses...launching without IPv6 support was a perfectly natural and sensible thing for them to do, it seems.
The problem I have seen is not to get IPv6/dual stack in LTE (this worked from day one), it's to get dual stack working in all the cases with bearer establishment and handover between 2G/3G and 4G. 2G/3G is "fully integrated" with each other, but LTE is still kind of separate, vendors are just now getting around to producing mobile core nodes that support all of them with a single node for each function. Would you want to get IPv6 when you're in the LTE network but lose it when you were handed over to 2G/3G. My guess is not, so I believe providers will wait until that is really done. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
* Mikael Abrahamsson
Would you want to get IPv6 when you're in the LTE network but lose it when you were handed over to 2G/3G.
Absolutely. That some features are available only on the most advanced access technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not, what's the point of upgrading at all? I lose my YouTube streams when I get handed over from 3G to 2G, too, for example. I can live with that. I much prefer it to YouTube not working 3G as well, even though that might very well be considered a more "consistent" user experience. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
That some features are available only on the most advanced access technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not, what's the point of upgrading at all?
Uh, whut? I expect my ssh sessions to survive a 4G->3G handover, and if they happen to go over IPv6, I want them to survive. The important reason to upgrade is to get higher speeds, not to get access to new L3 tech.
I lose my YouTube streams when I get handed over from 3G to 2G, too, for example. I can live with that. I much prefer it to YouTube not working 3G as well, even though that might very well be considered a more "consistent" user experience.
I don't agree with you at all. I don't believe I would lose the stream when doing that handoff in our network, it might buffer some more (because EDGE is slower than HSDPA), but you wouldn't lose the stream. Consistent behaviour (apart from speed) on all networks is really important for me, and I'd imagine it is for most users as well. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On 10/11/2012 8:44 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
That some features are available only on the most advanced access technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not, what's the point of upgrading at all?
Uh, whut? I expect my ssh sessions to survive a 4G->3G handover, and if they happen to go over IPv6, I want them to survive.
If your SSH sessions could survive a change in address assignment (which often happens in a handover), they could survive a change in address family assignment as well. Unfortunately, TCP - upon which ssh is built - uses the routing identifiers as the host identifiers, and so this doesn't work.
The important reason to upgrade is to get higher speeds, not to get access to new L3 tech.
I lose my YouTube streams when I get handed over from 3G to 2G, too, for example. I can live with that. I much prefer it to YouTube not working 3G as well, even though that might very well be considered a more "consistent" user experience.
I don't agree with you at all. I don't believe I would lose the stream when doing that handoff in our network, it might buffer some more (because EDGE is slower than HSDPA), but you wouldn't lose the stream.
But the stream would almost certainly be coming to a newly assigned IP address (and once you're doing that, who cares if the family changes too?)
Consistent behaviour (apart from speed) on all networks is really important for me, and I'd imagine it is for most users as well.
The *only* inconsistency would be when you're accessing the IPv6-only part of the Internet, of which there's currently none that consumers care about. Matthew Kaufman
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
If your SSH sessions could survive a change in address assignment (which often happens in a handover), they could survive a change in address family assignment as well.
Why would there be an address change in a handover? That is definitely not expected behaviour.
But the stream would almost certainly be coming to a newly assigned IP address?
Why do you believe that address changes in handover? It's an integral part of 3GPP standard that your existing bearer is used for handover, so your address shouldn't change. If it changes then it means the handover didn't work as designed, probably due to some radio related problem. If the address changed, then it means the bearer was torn down and a new bearer was initiated. This is definitely not expected behaviour. We have plenty of customers with bearers that are up for tens of days in a row.
The *only* inconsistency would be when you're accessing the IPv6-only part of the Internet, of which there's currently none that consumers care about.
If a user is accessing a stream from an IPv6 enabled CDN that stream shouldn't be reset just because a handover happened. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Why do you believe that address changes in handover? It's an integral part of 3GPP standard that your existing bearer is used for handover, so your address shouldn't change. If it changes then it means the handover didn't work as designed, probably due to some radio related problem. If the address changed, then it means the bearer was torn down and a new bearer was initiated. This is definitely not expected behaviour. We have plenty of customers with bearers that are up for tens of days in a row.
For that to be true wouldnt support for IPv6 need to be in all generations of networks. With that standard in place there can not be new protocols without retrofitting. For a user to switch from 6 to 4 would require and address change however that address change would be reliant on DNS which would be out of the scope of network grade support. On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
If your SSH sessions could survive a change in address assignment (which often happens in a handover), they could survive a change in address family assignment as well.
Why would there be an address change in a handover? That is definitely not expected behaviour.
But the stream would almost certainly be coming to a newly assigned IP address?
Why do you believe that address changes in handover? It's an integral part of 3GPP standard that your existing bearer is used for handover, so your address shouldn't change. If it changes then it means the handover didn't work as designed, probably due to some radio related problem. If the address changed, then it means the bearer was torn down and a new bearer was initiated. This is definitely not expected behaviour. We have plenty of customers with bearers that are up for tens of days in a row.
The *only* inconsistency would be when you're accessing the IPv6-only part of the Internet, of which there's currently none that consumers care about.
If a user is accessing a stream from an IPv6 enabled CDN that stream shouldn't be reset just because a handover happened.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
-- -------------------- Bryan Tong Nullivex LLC | eSited LLC (507) 298-1624
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Bryan Tong wrote:
Why do you believe that address changes in handover? It's an integral part of 3GPP standard that your existing bearer is used for handover, so your address shouldn't change. If it changes then it means the handover didn't work as designed, probably due to some radio related problem. If the address changed, then it means the bearer was torn down and a new bearer was initiated. This is definitely not expected behaviour. We have plenty of customers with bearers that are up for tens of days in a row.
For that to be true wouldnt support for IPv6 need to be in all generations of networks. With that standard in place there can not be new protocols without retrofitting. For a user to switch from 6 to 4 would require and address change however that address change would be reliant on DNS which would be out of the scope of network grade support.
The goal is to have dual stack in all networks. Single stack IPv6 has worked for a long time in 2G/3G/4G (I did first trials 2 years ago, it's a non-brainer). It's the support for a dual stack bearer that is problematic. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
* Mikael Abrahamsson
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
That some features are available only on the most advanced access technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not, what's the point of upgrading at all?
Uh, whut? I expect my ssh sessions to survive a 4G->3G handover, and if they happen to go over IPv6, I want them to survive.
In my experience, long-lived sessions are unreliable when you're on the move anyway. Go into an elevator? Sessions drop. Subway heads into a tunnel? Sessions drop. Get in range of a known WiFi network? Sessions drop. If you want to make an app for mobile, you better be able to recover. So for me, this is hardly a concern. Still, I'll grant you that you that you and I might have different priorities here. I think this is a really poor excuse for not supporting IPv6 and IPv4v6 in any case. Unless I'm gravely misinformed on how 3GPP mobile networks work, there is absolutely no reason why you cannot on LTE simultaneously support IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6. That the LTE network additionally supports IPv6/IPv4v6 does not *in any way* prevent you from sticking to IPv4 in all cases and enjoying the exact same session mobility between 2G/3G/4G as you can if the LTE network only supports IPv4. The session mobility problem will not go away completely by upgrading the 2G/3G part of the network, too. As I understand it, there's no shortage of devices on the market that only supports IPv6 on LTE, but not on 3G. Apple's iPhones and iPads, for example. So while it won't be the network's fault, it doesn't really matter - from the end users's point of view, the exact same thing will happen. Besides, the LTE network is being touted as a potential replacement for wired broadband. In that use case, the end user isn't likely to be mobile at all - presumably he'll have some CPE sitting in his window sill within LTE coverage 100% of the time. So no session mobility issues, and all the potential to be provisioned with IPv6 access. But no.
The important reason to upgrade is to get higher speeds, not to get access to new L3 tech.
Missed opportunity if you ask me. We could have had both.
I lose my YouTube streams when I get handed over from 3G to 2G, too, for example. I can live with that. I much prefer it to YouTube not working 3G as well, even though that might very well be considered a more "consistent" user experience.
I don't agree with you at all. I don't believe I would lose the stream when doing that handoff in our network, it might buffer some more (because EDGE is slower than HSDPA), but you wouldn't lose the stream.
I'm not watching a YouTube stream to see a still frame with a "buffering..." animation on top, so if I roam into 2G while watching something, I'll be putting my phone away anyway. Whether or not I actually lose the TCP connection is besides the point, the application is useless anyway. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Mikael Abrahamsson
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
That some features are available only on the most advanced access technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not, what's the point of upgrading at all?
Uh, whut? I expect my ssh sessions to survive a 4G->3G handover, and if they happen to go over IPv6, I want them to survive.
In my experience, long-lived sessions are unreliable when you're on the move anyway. Go into an elevator? Sessions drop. Subway heads into a tunnel? Sessions drop.
I guess you and me have radically different experience of mobile phone networks and how well they work.
I think this is a really poor excuse for not supporting IPv6 and IPv4v6 in any case. Unless I'm gravely misinformed on how 3GPP mobile networks work, there is absolutely no reason why you cannot on LTE simultaneously support IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6. That the LTE network additionally supports IPv6/IPv4v6 does not *in any way* prevent you from sticking to IPv4 in all cases and enjoying the exact same session mobility between 2G/3G/4G as you can if the LTE network only supports IPv4.
IPv4v6 on LTE is a no-brainer, I did first tests with that 1.5-2 years ago. IPv6 only on 2G/3G/4G also works well. Not that many devices with GA firmware supports this unfortunately.
The session mobility problem will not go away completely by upgrading the 2G/3G part of the network, too. As I understand it, there's no shortage of devices on the market that only supports IPv6 on LTE, but not on 3G. Apple's iPhones and iPads, for example. So while it won't be the network's fault, it doesn't really matter - from the end users's point of view, the exact same thing will happen.
Well, with the current end user device situation, focus is on usb dongles. They seem to support all combinations just fine.
Besides, the LTE network is being touted as a potential replacement for wired broadband. In that use case, the end user isn't likely to be mobile at all - presumably he'll have some CPE sitting in his window sill within LTE coverage 100% of the time. So no session mobility issues, and all the potential to be provisioned with IPv6 access. But no.
Sure. But now you will probably have a 4G router with NAT44, with no IPv6 support at all. I'd gladly take hints of devices with proper IPv4v6 support in this area.
The important reason to upgrade is to get higher speeds, not to get access to new L3 tech.
Missed opportunity if you ask me. We could have had both.
Yes we could, and we will. Just because someone isn't doing it *now* doesn't mean it won't be done in the not so distant future. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
* Mikael Abrahamsson
In my experience, long-lived sessions are unreliable when you're on the move anyway. Go into an elevator? Sessions drop. Subway heads into a tunnel? Sessions drop.
I guess you and me have radically different experience of mobile phone networks and how well they work.
Maybe. Welcome to Oslo. :-)
I think this is a really poor excuse for not supporting IPv6 and IPv4v6 in any case. Unless I'm gravely misinformed on how 3GPP mobile networks work, there is absolutely no reason why you cannot on LTE simultaneously support IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6. That the LTE network additionally supports IPv6/IPv4v6 does not *in any way* prevent you from sticking to IPv4 in all cases and enjoying the exact same session mobility between 2G/3G/4G as you can if the LTE network only supports IPv4.
IPv4v6 on LTE is a no-brainer,
...and that is *precisely* why it's so disappointing to see Telenor not supporting it from day one.
Besides, the LTE network is being touted as a potential replacement for wired broadband. In that use case, the end user isn't likely to be mobile at all - presumably he'll have some CPE sitting in his window sill within LTE coverage 100% of the time. So no session mobility issues, and all the potential to be provisioned with IPv6 access. But no.
Sure. But now you will probably have a 4G router with NAT44, with no IPv6 support at all. I'd gladly take hints of devices with proper IPv4v6 support in this area.
I don't know of any 4G routers at all, but what I do know is that any 4G router with NAT44 and no IPv6 support would work just fine in an LTE network that also supported IPv6/IPv4v6. What I also do know is that if you do manage to get your hands on a dual-stack capable router (or any other mobile device really), its IPv6 capabilities will *not* work on an LTE network with no IPv6/IPv4v6 bearer support.
The important reason to upgrade is to get higher speeds, not to get access to new L3 tech.
Missed opportunity if you ask me. We could have had both.
Yes we could, and we will. Just because someone isn't doing it *now* doesn't mean it won't be done in the not so distant future.
We could have had it available on LTE *now* and in a not so distant future on 2G/3G. Doing it incrementally like that would not break any current IPv4-only stuff, so I don't understand how it's problematic. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
* Tore Anderson (tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com) wrote:
* Mikael Abrahamsson
In my experience, long-lived sessions are unreliable when you're on the move anyway. Go into an elevator? Sessions drop. Subway heads into a tunnel? Sessions drop.
I guess you and me have radically different experience of mobile phone networks and how well they work.
Maybe. Welcome to Oslo. :-)
But then, if I remember correctly, Telenor choose to go all-in with one of the Chinese vendors.. I am really interested to see how that plays out. /Joakim
https://intelligence.businessinsider.com/facebook-is-adding-over-25000-mobil... dream big.... /bill On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:31:44AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Cameron Byrne
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next generation technology ...
Yesterday, Telenor launched LTE.
So. With a green-field deployment, in their home market (supposed to be the first of their tree-digit million subscribers world-wide to get all the cool new tech), built on 3GPP specs that fully supports IPv6, already proven to work by other pioneers (^5 VzW), for which there are plenty of compatible devices (again, ^5 VzW), and plenty of compatible content (^5 ISOC, et al.), four months after World IPv6 Launch (in which they participated), and one month after their RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses...launching without IPv6 support was a perfectly natural and sensible thing for them to do, it seems.
*sigh*
-- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Subscription only, $199/year (special introductory offer, normally $499!). Try it free for two weeks but only if you cough up info. How about a summary for those of us who are disinclined to do either? -r bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com writes:
https://intelligence.businessinsider.com/facebook-is-adding-over-25000-mobil...
dream big....
/bill
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:31:44AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Cameron Byrne
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next generation technology ...
Yesterday, Telenor launched LTE.
So. With a green-field deployment, in their home market (supposed to be the first of their tree-digit million subscribers world-wide to get all the cool new tech), built on 3GPP specs that fully supports IPv6, already proven to work by other pioneers (^5 VzW), for which there are plenty of compatible devices (again, ^5 VzW), and plenty of compatible content (^5 ISOC, et al.), four months after World IPv6 Launch (in which they participated), and one month after their RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses...launching without IPv6 support was a perfectly natural and sensible thing for them to do, it seems.
*sigh*
-- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
participants (17)
-
Andrey Khomyakov -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Bryan Tong -
Cameron Byrne -
Chu, Yi [NTK] -
Chuck Church -
Dobbins, Roland -
Grant Ridder -
Joakim Aronius -
joel jaeggli -
Justin M. Streiner -
Matthew Kaufman -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Måns Nilsson -
Robert E. Seastrom -
TJ -
Tore Anderson