97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless
Dear list, Since IPv4 exhaustion is an increasingly serious and timely topic lately, I would like to point out something that interests me, and maybe everyone else who will be spending a lot on Tylenol and booze when we really do run out of v4 IPs. I have trouble understanding why an ARIN record for a network regularly receiving new, out-sized IPv4 allocations on the order of millions of addresses at once would publish a remark like the one below, indicating that Verizon Wireless has about 2 million IPs allocated. OrgName: Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless CIDR: 97.128.0.0/9 Comment: Verizon Wireless currently has 44.3 Million Comment: subscribers with 2.097 Million IP addresses allocated. RegDate: 2008-04-14 This may be unscientific and full of error, but if you add up all the IPs behind AS6167, you get a pretty big number, about 27 million. If I make more dangerous assumptions, I might argue that a network with a need for 2 million IPs, at the time this /9 was handed out, already had about 19 million. Then it received 8 million more. Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular. It's reasonable to assume that virtually all cell phones will eventually have an IP address almost all the time. But that isn't the case right now, and the ARIN is in the business of supplying its members with six months worth of addresses. If everyone is expected to run out and buy a new phone and start using "the Google" right away, and stay on it all the time, maybe cellular operators really need a lot more IP addresses. If not, why does Verizon Wireless have 27 million IPs when the above comment indicates they need only a tenth of that? - j
Whatever happened to NAT? Jeff On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> wrote:
Dear list,
Since IPv4 exhaustion is an increasingly serious and timely topic lately, I would like to point out something that interests me, and maybe everyone else who will be spending a lot on Tylenol and booze when we really do run out of v4 IPs.
I have trouble understanding why an ARIN record for a network regularly receiving new, out-sized IPv4 allocations on the order of millions of addresses at once would publish a remark like the one below, indicating that Verizon Wireless has about 2 million IPs allocated.
OrgName: Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless CIDR: 97.128.0.0/9 Comment: Verizon Wireless currently has 44.3 Million Comment: subscribers with 2.097 Million IP addresses allocated. RegDate: 2008-04-14
This may be unscientific and full of error, but if you add up all the IPs behind AS6167, you get a pretty big number, about 27 million. If I make more dangerous assumptions, I might argue that a network with a need for 2 million IPs, at the time this /9 was handed out, already had about 19 million. Then it received 8 million more.
Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular. It's reasonable to assume that virtually all cell phones will eventually have an IP address almost all the time. But that isn't the case right now, and the ARIN is in the business of supplying its members with six months worth of addresses. If everyone is expected to run out and buy a new phone and start using "the Google" right away, and stay on it all the time, maybe cellular operators really need a lot more IP addresses. If not, why does Verizon Wireless have 27 million IPs when the above comment indicates they need only a tenth of that?
- j
-- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Look for us at HostingCon 2009 in Washington, DC on August 10th - 12th at Booth #401.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> wrote:
Whatever happened to NAT?
Jeff
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>
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. 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
Does ARIN lack sufficient resources to vet jumbo requests?
I am fairly confident ARIN followed their policies. The existing policies allow anyone (including Verizon) to make a request for (and receive) a /9 with appropriate justification. If you do not like the policies, please participate in the ARIN policy process and work to change them. Mailing lists: arin-ppml@arin.net Open to the general public. Provides a forum to raise and discuss policy-related ideas and issues surrounding existing and proposed ARIN policies. The PPML list is an intrinsic part of ARIN's Policy Development Process (PDP), which details how proposed policies are handled. http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html
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
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> wrote:
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.
so if they don't deploy IPv6 then ('extremely high growth period'), when will they? I don't presume to speak for everyone who immediately felt that tinge of surprise at reading of a /9 being allocated, but the blame is being laid on vzw not doing something other than 'can we have a /9 please?' --not ARIN and/or it's policies (another mailing list, duly noted)
David Conrad wrote:
On Feb 8, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Aaron Glenn wrote:
so if they don't deploy IPv6 then ('extremely high growth period'), when will they?
Hint: how many of the (say) Alexa top 1000 websites are IPv6 enabled?
haha, I went insane for a moment and though you said Freenix top 1000, and so I just checked that. Here is the answer to the question you didn't ask: Top 1000 Usenet Servers in the World list here: http://news.anthologeek.net/top1000.current.txt details here: http://news.anthologeek.net 1000 usenet server names 913 are potentially valid hostnames (in usenet news a server name does necessarily correspond directly to a hostname) 722 have ipv4 address records (A) 67 have ipv6 address records (AAAA) 9.2% of the top 1000 usenet servers have added support for ipv6 I'm sure there are more this took exactly 183 seconds of work. ;) Here they are: feeder.erje.net 2001:470:992a::3e19:561 feeder4.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::4:1 news.dal.ca 2001:410:a010:1:214:5eff:fe0a:4a4e news.nonexiste.net 2002:6009:93d5::1 nrc-news.nrc.ca 2001:410:9000:2::2 news.z74.net 2001:610:637:4::211 news.kjsl.com 2001:1868:204::104 npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net 2001:680:0:26::2 feeder6.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::6:1 feeder3.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::3:1 news.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::38 feeder2.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::2:1 feeder5.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::5:1 syros.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::17 vlad-tepes.bofh.it 2001:1418:13:1::5 news.stack.nl 2001:610:1108:5011:230:48ff:fe12:2794 ikarus.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::38 news.space.net 2001:608::1000:7 feed.news.tnib.de 2001:1b18:f:4::4 newsfeed.velia.net 2a01:7a0:3::254 news.isoc.lu 2001:a18:0:405:0:a0:456:1 ikaria.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::39 newsfeed.teleport-iabg.de 2001:1b10:100::119:1 news.tnib.de 2001:1b18:f:4::2 kanaga.switch.ch 2001:620:0:8::119:2 erode.bofh.it 2001:1418:13:1::3 irazu.switch.ch 2001:620:0:8::119:3 bofh.it 2001:1418:13::42 newsfeed.atman.pl 2001:1a68:0:4::2 news.mb-net.net 2a01:198:292:0:210:dcff:fe67:6b03 news.gnuher.de 2a01:198:293::2 switch.ch 2001:620:0:1b::b news.k-dsl.de 2a02:7a0:1::5 news.task.gda.pl 2001:4070:1::fafe news1.tnib.de 2001:1b18:f:4::2 aspen.stu.neva.ru 2001:b08:2:100::96 novso.com 2001:1668:2102:4::4 citadel.nobulus.com 2001:6f8:892:6ff::11:133 feeder.news.heanet.ie 2001:770:18:2::c101:db29 news-zh.switch.ch 2001:620:0:3::119:1 news.szn.dk 2001:1448:89::10:d85d news.litech.org 2001:440:fff9:100:202:b3ff:fea4:a44e news.weisnix.org 2001:6f8:892:6ff:213:8fff:febb:bec3 news.panservice.it 2001:40d0:0:4000::e nntp.eutelia.it 2001:750:2:3::20 bolzen.all.de 2001:bf0::60 newsfeed.esat.net 2001:7c8:3:1::3 news.snarked.org 2607:f350:1::1:4 feed1.news.be.easynet.net 2001:6f8:200:2::5:46 aotearoa.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::58 news.babsi.de 2a01:198:292:0:230:48ff:fe51:a68c news.muc.de 2001:608:1000::2 newsfeed.carnet.hr 2001:b68:e160::3 news.nask.pl 2001:a10:1:ffff::3:c9a2 news.linuxfan.it 2001:4c90:2::6 texta.sil.at 2001:858:2:1::2 news.stupi.se 2001:440:1880:5::10 news.supermedia.pl 2001:4c30:0:3::12 news.trigofacile.com 2001:41d0:1:6d44::1 nuzba.szn.dk 2001:6f8:1232::263:8546 geiz-ist-geil.priv.at 2001:858:666:f001::57 newsfeed.sunet.se 2001:6b0:7:88::101 news.pimp.lart.info 2001:6f8:9ed::1 glou.fr.eu.org 2001:838:30b::1 news.germany.com 2001:4068:101:119:1::77 feeder.z74.net 2001:610:637:4::211 news.nask.org.pl 2001:a10:1:ffff::3:c9a2 Mike. -- +---------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C ----------------+ | Mike Leber Wholesale IPv4 and IPv6 Transit 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric AS6939 | | mleber@he.net Internet Backbone & Colocation http://he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
We're not a big verizon wireless customer, (we have been allocated a /25 for remote data access devices). We run multi-homed BGP with vw. vw says that they must advertise 48 summarized prefixes to us, instead of just the /25. The 48 prefixes are apparently advertised to all of the de-aggregated users contained in the summarized 48 prefixes. Is this a common practice? If so is it a best practice? -----Original Message----- From: Mike Leber [mailto:mleber@he.net] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 10:39 PM To: David Conrad Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless David Conrad wrote:
On Feb 8, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Aaron Glenn wrote:
so if they don't deploy IPv6 then ('extremely high growth period'), when will they?
Hint: how many of the (say) Alexa top 1000 websites are IPv6 enabled?
haha, I went insane for a moment and though you said Freenix top 1000, and so I just checked that. Here is the answer to the question you didn't ask: Top 1000 Usenet Servers in the World list here: http://news.anthologeek.net/top1000.current.txt details here: http://news.anthologeek.net 1000 usenet server names 913 are potentially valid hostnames (in usenet news a server name does necessarily correspond directly to a hostname) 722 have ipv4 address records (A) 67 have ipv6 address records (AAAA) 9.2% of the top 1000 usenet servers have added support for ipv6 I'm sure there are more this took exactly 183 seconds of work. ;) Here they are: feeder.erje.net 2001:470:992a::3e19:561 feeder4.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::4:1 news.dal.ca 2001:410:a010:1:214:5eff:fe0a:4a4e news.nonexiste.net 2002:6009:93d5::1 nrc-news.nrc.ca 2001:410:9000:2::2 news.z74.net 2001:610:637:4::211 news.kjsl.com 2001:1868:204::104 npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net 2001:680:0:26::2 feeder6.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::6:1 feeder3.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::3:1 news.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::38 feeder2.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::2:1 feeder5.cambrium.nl 2a02:58:3:119::5:1 syros.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::17 vlad-tepes.bofh.it 2001:1418:13:1::5 news.stack.nl 2001:610:1108:5011:230:48ff:fe12:2794 ikarus.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::38 news.space.net 2001:608::1000:7 feed.news.tnib.de 2001:1b18:f:4::4 newsfeed.velia.net 2a01:7a0:3::254 news.isoc.lu 2001:a18:0:405:0:a0:456:1 ikaria.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::39 newsfeed.teleport-iabg.de 2001:1b10:100::119:1 news.tnib.de 2001:1b18:f:4::2 kanaga.switch.ch 2001:620:0:8::119:2 erode.bofh.it 2001:1418:13:1::3 irazu.switch.ch 2001:620:0:8::119:3 bofh.it 2001:1418:13::42 newsfeed.atman.pl 2001:1a68:0:4::2 news.mb-net.net 2a01:198:292:0:210:dcff:fe67:6b03 news.gnuher.de 2a01:198:293::2 switch.ch 2001:620:0:1b::b news.k-dsl.de 2a02:7a0:1::5 news.task.gda.pl 2001:4070:1::fafe news1.tnib.de 2001:1b18:f:4::2 aspen.stu.neva.ru 2001:b08:2:100::96 novso.com 2001:1668:2102:4::4 citadel.nobulus.com 2001:6f8:892:6ff::11:133 feeder.news.heanet.ie 2001:770:18:2::c101:db29 news-zh.switch.ch 2001:620:0:3::119:1 news.szn.dk 2001:1448:89::10:d85d news.litech.org 2001:440:fff9:100:202:b3ff:fea4:a44e news.weisnix.org 2001:6f8:892:6ff:213:8fff:febb:bec3 news.panservice.it 2001:40d0:0:4000::e nntp.eutelia.it 2001:750:2:3::20 bolzen.all.de 2001:bf0::60 newsfeed.esat.net 2001:7c8:3:1::3 news.snarked.org 2607:f350:1::1:4 feed1.news.be.easynet.net 2001:6f8:200:2::5:46 aotearoa.belnet.be 2001:6a8:3c80::58 news.babsi.de 2a01:198:292:0:230:48ff:fe51:a68c news.muc.de 2001:608:1000::2 newsfeed.carnet.hr 2001:b68:e160::3 news.nask.pl 2001:a10:1:ffff::3:c9a2 news.linuxfan.it 2001:4c90:2::6 texta.sil.at 2001:858:2:1::2 news.stupi.se 2001:440:1880:5::10 news.supermedia.pl 2001:4c30:0:3::12 news.trigofacile.com 2001:41d0:1:6d44::1 nuzba.szn.dk 2001:6f8:1232::263:8546 geiz-ist-geil.priv.at 2001:858:666:f001::57 newsfeed.sunet.se 2001:6b0:7:88::101 news.pimp.lart.info 2001:6f8:9ed::1 glou.fr.eu.org 2001:838:30b::1 news.germany.com 2001:4068:101:119:1::77 feeder.z74.net 2001:610:637:4::211 news.nask.org.pl 2001:a10:1:ffff::3:c9a2 Mike. -- +---------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C ----------------+ | Mike Leber Wholesale IPv4 and IPv6 Transit 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric AS6939 | | mleber@he.net Internet Backbone & Colocation http://he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
I think that you've got a bit of a logic fault here. You seem to be assuming that because you can't find any external any sign of Verizon preparing for IPv6, that they're definitely not doing so. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't (your -guess- is as good as mine), but that process is not necessarily going to be broadcast to the entire world. Especially after the earlier thread via customer IPv6 rollouts by ISPs, I think it should be fairly evident that there can be nontrivial "backend" plumbing work needed to get things IPv6 ready, not all of which is necessarily going to be inherently customer-visible for all stages of progress. - S -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Glenn [mailto:aaron.glenn@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 10:37 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> wrote:
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.
so if they don't deploy IPv6 then ('extremely high growth period'), when will they? I don't presume to speak for everyone who immediately felt that tinge of surprise at reading of a /9 being allocated, but the blame is being laid on vzw not doing something other than 'can we have a /9 please?' --not ARIN and/or it's policies (another mailing list, duly noted)
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> wrote:
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.
Plus the rest of their space, at least the easily identifiable portions. It's extremely difficult to speculate what people are doing with large amounts of addresses. I trust that ARIN has done the right thing in accordance with community standards. V6 addresses included. They may want to not recycle that template containing the comment again. It showed up on the last two allocations. Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK (NET-66-174-0-0-1 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET-66-174-0-0-1>) 66.174.0.0 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=66.174.0.0> - 66.174.255.255 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=66.174.255.255> Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK (NET-69-82-0-0-1 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET-69-82-0-0-1>) 69.82.0.0 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=69.82.0.0> - 69.83.255.255 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=69.83.255.255> Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK (NET-69-96-0-0-1 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET-69-96-0-0-1>) 69.96.0.0 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=69.96.0.0> - 69.103.255.255 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=69.103.255.255> Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK (NET-70-192-0-0-1 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET-70-192-0-0-1>) 70.192.0.0 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=70.192.0.0> - 70.223.255.255 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=70.223.255.255> Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK (NET6-2001-4888-1 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET6-2001-4888-1>) 2001:4888:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=2001:4888:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000> - 2001:4888:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=2001:4888:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF> Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK (NET-97-128-0-0-1 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET-97-128-0-0-1>) 97.128.0.0 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=97.128.0.0> - 97.255.255.255 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=97.255.255.255> Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless WIRELESSDATANETWORK (NET-174-192-0-0-1 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=%21%20NET-174-192-0-0-1>) 174.192.0.0 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=174.192.0.0> - 174.255.255.255 <http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=174.255.255.255> Best, Martin -- Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079
Mark Andrews schrieb:
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.
OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity in the world. Most of them try to be "good citizens" and do not waste a scarce resource (IPv4 space). If more providers would act like Verizon, we would have run out of IPv4 addresses a long time ago (whether or not that is a good or bad thing is left as an exercise to the reader). -- Matthias
On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:31 PM, Matthias Leisi wrote:
Mark Andrews schrieb:
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.
OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity in the world. Most of them try to be "good citizens" and do not waste a scarce resource (IPv4 space).
You mean like the 10.x.x.x addresses give to all iPhones in the US? Wait, I thought NAT was bad? So who is the "good citizen"? -- TTFN, patrick
If more providers would act like Verizon, we would have run out of IPv4 addresses a long time ago (whether or not that is a good or bad thing is left as an exercise to the reader).
-- Matthias
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
Mark Andrews schrieb:
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.
OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity in the world. Most of them try to be "good citizens" and do not waste a scarce resource (IPv4 space).
I disagree that using global IPv4 space is a "waste". Every device deserves to have "real" internet connectivity and not this NAT crap.
Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
Mark Andrews schrieb:
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.
OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity in the world. Most of them try to be "good citizens" and do not waste a scarce resource (IPv4 space).
I disagree that using global IPv4 space is a "waste". Every device deserves to have "real" internet connectivity and not this NAT crap.
Why must it be always "real" versus NAT? 99% of users don't care one way or another. Would it be so hard for the carrier to provide a switch between NAT and "real" IP if the user needs or wants it?
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:52:52 PST, Dave Temkin said:
Why must it be always "real" versus NAT? 99% of users don't care one way or another. Would it be so hard for the carrier to provide a switch between NAT and "real" IP if the user needs or wants it?
You're almost always better off not providing a user-accessible switch. Especially not a shiny one labeled "Do not touch unless you know what you are doing". (FWIW, this is exactly the same issue as "block port 25 unless user requests opt-out from the block")
On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
Mark Andrews schrieb:
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.
OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity in the world. Most of them try to be "good citizens" and do not waste a scarce resource (IPv4 space).
I disagree that using global IPv4 space is a "waste". Every device deserves to have "real" internet connectivity and not this NAT crap.
Why must it be always "real" versus NAT? 99% of users don't care one way or another. Would it be so hard for the carrier to provide a switch between NAT and "real" IP if the user needs or wants it?
Lots of providers do. Sometimes the choice between static & dynamic is bundled with the choice between NAT & "real" on some broadband providers. I've also seen hotels do it, and even charge extra for it. (Yes, I paid. ;) -- TTFN, patrick
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
Mark Andrews schrieb:
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.
OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity in the world. Most of them try to be "good citizens" and do not waste a scarce resource (IPv4 space).
I disagree that using global IPv4 space is a "waste". Every device deserves to have "real" internet connectivity and not this NAT crap.
Why must it be always "real" versus NAT? 99% of users don't care one way or another. Would it be so hard for the carrier to provide a switch between NAT and "real" IP if the user needs or wants it?
Lots of providers do. Sometimes the choice between static & dynamic is bundled with the choice between NAT & "real" on some broadband providers.
I've also seen hotels do it, and even charge extra for it. (Yes, I paid. ;)
Exactly. I've seen this as well in both instances but haven't seen it on mobile phones. It's something so obscure that you're going to have to really want it to turn it on. I don't think the Port 25 example holds much water here. -Dave
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Dave Temkin <davet1@gmail.com> wrote:
Exactly. I've seen this as well in both instances but haven't seen it on mobile phones. It's something so obscure that you're going to have to really want it to turn it on. I don't think the Port 25 example holds much water here.
Many/most GSM/GPRS/etc operators will have multiple APN's - one which is setup for NAT, and the other which gives a public IP address. By default, most "dumb" phones will use the former. Data cards will use the latter, and smartphones seem to be split between the two - although obviously it will vary between providers. Scott.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> wrote:
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.
27 million IP addresses for 45 million customers with addressable devices sounds well within ARIN's justification guidelines. Just because most of your customers are trying to pull the wool over ARIN's eyes doesn't mean Verizon is too. :) Drive Slow, Paul Wall
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Aaron Glenn <aaron.glenn@gmail.com> wrote:
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>
Probably because Verizon Business isn't using it, unless you count a couple of lab GRE tunnels. Drive Slow, Paul Wall
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Paul Wall <pauldotwall@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Aaron Glenn <aaron.glenn@gmail.com> wrote:
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>
Probably because Verizon Business isn't using it, unless you count a couple of lab GRE tunnels.
so... actually... if you ask for v6 apparently vzb's deployment is still moving along and is accessible for customers. FiOS/DSL though is not :( -Chris
Any cell phone that uses data service to download a ringtone, wallpaper, picature, use their TV/radio webcast service, or their walkie talkie feature will use an IP address. In addition to that Verizon wireless sells their EVDO aircards for laptops. Given the size of their customer base it is not shocking that they have 27 million IP addresses in their pool. ARIN doesn't just give them away it would be up to Verizon to prove that they are utilizing 90+% before they could be alloted any additional IP's. Hope this helps explain things a little bit. -Tim Eberhard Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular. It's reasonable to assume
that virtually all cell phones will eventually have an IP address almost all the time. But that isn't the case right now, and the ARIN is in the business of supplying its members with six months worth of addresses. If everyone is expected to run out and buy a new phone and start using "the Google" right away, and stay on it all the time, maybe cellular operators really need a lot more IP addresses. If not, why does Verizon Wireless have 27 million IPs when the above comment indicates they need only a tenth of that?
- j
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> wrote:
Dear list,
Since IPv4 exhaustion is an increasingly serious and timely topic lately, I would like to point out something that interests me, and maybe everyone else who will be spending a lot on Tylenol and booze when we really do run out of v4 IPs.
I have trouble understanding why an ARIN record for a network regularly receiving new, out-sized IPv4 allocations on the order of millions of addresses at once would publish a remark like the one below, indicating that Verizon Wireless has about 2 million IPs allocated.
OrgName: Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless CIDR: 97.128.0.0/9 Comment: Verizon Wireless currently has 44.3 Million Comment: subscribers with 2.097 Million IP addresses allocated. RegDate: 2008-04-14
Why don't you try asking them? OrgTechHandle: MGE16-ARIN<http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=P%20%21%20MGE16-ARIN> OrgTechName: George, Matt OrgTechPhone: +1-908-306-7000 OrgTechEmail: abuse@verizonwireless.com
I have trouble understanding why an ARIN record for a network regularly receiving new, out-sized IPv4 allocations on the order of millions of OrgName: Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless CIDR: 97.128.0.0/9 Comment: Verizon Wireless currently has 44.3 Million Comment: subscribers with 2.097 Million IP addresses allocated. RegDate: 2008-04-14
If they have immediately allocated 2.097 million out of 8.388 million, then they have satisfied the 25% immediate utilization requirement. In fact, 2.097 million is exactly how many they would need immediate use for in order to justify an allocation of 8 million IPs according to ARIN policy. I expect the 2.097 million figure applies only to this particular range, this comment in whois does not indicate that Verizon has _only_ assigned that many across all its various ranges; I would fully expect they have massively more IPs in use. I would expect ARIN would have followed policy, and so Verizon had to show to ARIN their well-founded projection that within one year, at least 50% of the new assignment would be allocated. And also that they met the additional requirements for ISPs; 80% utilization over all previous allocations, and also 80% of their most recent allocation. -- -Jimmy
On 2/8/09 3:24 AM, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular. It's reasonable to assume that virtually all cell phones will eventually have an IP address almost all the time.
The numbers I keep seeing for so-called "smartphones" in the press for U.S. and Europe are 49% and 50% within two years, respectively. Here's an article you might find interesting about the U.S. domestic market, and it may help you calculate what sort of growth rate we can expect in the future, when combined with both of the above numbers. Put another way, the news is bad, but there is a cap on growth. http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2008/09/29/story10.html Eliot
Eliot Lear wrote:
On 2/8/09 3:24 AM, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular. It's reasonable to assume that virtually all cell phones will eventually have an IP address almost all the time.
The numbers I keep seeing for so-called "smartphones" in the press for U.S. and Europe are 49% and 50% within two years, respectively. Here's an article you might find interesting about the U.S. domestic market, and it may help you calculate what sort of growth rate we can expect in the future, when combined with both of the above numbers. Put another way, the news is bad, but there is a cap on growth.
We live in rather sad times if, subscriber, arpu and internet usage growth is considered bad news.
http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2008/09/29/story10.html
Eliot
Exactly. On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
On 2/8/09 3:24 AM, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular. It's reasonable to assume that virtually all cell phones will eventually have an IP address almost all the time.
The numbers I keep seeing for so-called "smartphones" in the press for U.S. and Europe are 49% and 50% within two years, respectively. Here's an article you might find interesting about the U.S. domestic market, and it may help you calculate what sort of growth rate we can expect in the future, when combined with both of the above numbers. Put another way, the news is bad, but there is a cap on growth.
We live in rather sad times if, subscriber, arpu and internet usage growth is considered bad news.
http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2008/09/29/story10.html
Eliot
I have no personal knowledge of this situation, so this is wild speculation. http://news.cnet.com/verizon-completes-alltel-purchase/ Verizon Wireless is going to be soon selling operations in 105 markets. It may well be that the IP addresses for those markets will be transfered to the new company as well, and you'll see some of these blocks leave their name soon. It could also be that AllTel had a much lower percentage of subscribers using data, and Verizon is fixing to change that soon. With the merger complete Verizon Wireless will have 83.7 million subscribers (per the article). I see 27,371,520 IP's in all their advertised blocks now, add in the 8,388,608 they just got, for a total of 35,760,128. If we assume across all blocks they can get 80% USAGE efficiency (which would surprise me) that's enough IP's to feed data to 28,608,102 subs. That would mean they can serve about 34% of their customers with data. Lastly, you've assumed that only a "smart phone" (not that the term is well defined) needs an IP address. I believe this is wrong. There are plenty of simpler phones (e.g. not a PDA, touch screen, read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP browse, or to fetch things like ring tones. They use an IP on the network. By the same math they have 55.1 million (83.7 million subs - 28.6 they can serve now) they can't serve data to yet, and using the same 80% effiency that will take another 68.9 million addresses to do that. A /6 has 67.1 million addresses, so I suspect you'll see over time another /6, or two /7's, or four /8's, or eight /9's....... Which leaves us with two take aways: 1) The comment is weird. 2) If one company is likely to need four more /8's, and there are now 32 in the free pool man is IPv4 in trouble. At this point it would only take eight companies the size of verizon wireless to exhaust the free pool WORLDWIDE. No matter how much effort we put into reclaiming IPv4 space there's just no way to keep up with new demand. Is your network IPv6 enabled yet? -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Leo Bicknell: Lastly, you've assumed that only a "smart phone" (not that the term
is well defined) needs an IP address. I believe this is wrong. There are plenty of simpler phones (e.g. not a PDA, touch screen, read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP browse, or to fetch things like ring tones. They use an IP on the network.
Alternatively, Verizon is planning to build an all-IP NGN architecture in the near future, or is at least providing for the possibility of building one. Mobilkom Austria, for example, has done a deal with Fring to put their SIP VoIP client on handsets and serve their voice traffic over IP. In that case, you'd need IP addresses for all the people who use VOICE. You can do ringtones and the like through USSD...but there's no escape from voice.
On 2/8/09 5:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Lastly, you've assumed that only a "smart phone" (not that the term is well defined) needs an IP address. I believe this is wrong. There are plenty of simpler phones (e.g. not a PDA, touch screen, read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP browse, or to fetch things like ring tones. They use an IP on the network.
The term is ill defined, but the general connotation is that they will be supplanting dumb phones. So say what you will,phones with IP addresses is likely to increase as a percentage of the installed base. The only thing offsetting that is the indication that the U.S. is saturating on total # of cell phones, which is what that article says. Moving on... Eliot
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:45:51 +0100 Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
On 2/8/09 5:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Lastly, you've assumed that only a "smart phone" (not that the term is well defined) needs an IP address. I believe this is wrong. There are plenty of simpler phones (e.g. not a PDA, touch screen, read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP browse, or to fetch things like ring tones. They use an IP on the network.
The term is ill defined, but the general connotation is that they will be supplanting dumb phones. So say what you will,phones with IP addresses is likely to increase as a percentage of the installed base. The only thing offsetting that is the indication that the U.S. is saturating on total # of cell phones, which is what that article says.
Of course, my iPhone is currently showing an IP address in 10/8, and though my EVDO card shows a global address in 70.198/16, I can't ssh to it -- a TCP traceroute appears to be blocked at the border of Verizon Wireless' network. But hey, at least I can ping it. (Confirmed by tcpdump on my laptop: the pings are not being spoofed by a border router.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
This discussion about smartphones and the like was presuming that those devices all received public IPs -- my experience has been more often than not that they get RFC 1918 addresses. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@cs.columbia.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 3:58 PM To: Eliot Lear Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:45:51 +0100 Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
On 2/8/09 5:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Lastly, you've assumed that only a "smart phone" (not that the term is well defined) needs an IP address. I believe this is wrong. There are plenty of simpler phones (e.g. not a PDA, touch screen, read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP browse, or to fetch things like ring tones. They use an IP on the network.
The term is ill defined, but the general connotation is that they will be supplanting dumb phones. So say what you will,phones with IP addresses is likely to increase as a percentage of the installed base. The only thing offsetting that is the indication that the U.S. is saturating on total # of cell phones, which is what that article says.
Of course, my iPhone is currently showing an IP address in 10/8, and though my EVDO card shows a global address in 70.198/16, I can't ssh to it -- a TCP traceroute appears to be blocked at the border of Verizon Wireless' network. But hey, at least I can ping it. (Confirmed by tcpdump on my laptop: the pings are not being spoofed by a border router.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
For better or worse, Verizon hands out globally routable addresses for smartphones. (Certainly, the one I've got has one.) They seem to come from the same pool as data card links. Note that I suspect that there's a nontrivial number of folk that are used to using some not quite really NAT friendly protocols like IPsec on their (targeted-for-business primarily <not iPhone> smartphones). (Yeah, there's IPsec NAT-T, which I've seen fall flat on its face countless times.) Breaking that sort of connectivity is likely to be hard to swallow for some nontrivial portion of some of their customers. - S -----Original Message----- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnkblk@iname.com] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 10:48 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless This discussion about smartphones and the like was presuming that those devices all received public IPs -- my experience has been more often than not that they get RFC 1918 addresses. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@cs.columbia.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 3:58 PM To: Eliot Lear Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:45:51 +0100 Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
On 2/8/09 5:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Lastly, you've assumed that only a "smart phone" (not that the term is well defined) needs an IP address. I believe this is wrong. There are plenty of simpler phones (e.g. not a PDA, touch screen, read your e-mail thing) that can use cellular data to WEP browse, or to fetch things like ring tones. They use an IP on the network.
The term is ill defined, but the general connotation is that they will be supplanting dumb phones. So say what you will,phones with IP addresses is likely to increase as a percentage of the installed base. The only thing offsetting that is the indication that the U.S. is saturating on total # of cell phones, which is what that article says.
Of course, my iPhone is currently showing an IP address in 10/8, and though my EVDO card shows a global address in 70.198/16, I can't ssh to it -- a TCP traceroute appears to be blocked at the border of Verizon Wireless' network. But hey, at least I can ping it. (Confirmed by tcpdump on my laptop: the pings are not being spoofed by a border router.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> wrote:
Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular.
My ancient and crufty Nextel iDEN i530 phone, manufactured circa 2003, with a monochrome 4-line text display, and about as "dumb" as they get, gets assigned an IP address. Now, that IP address is in 10/8, but the point is that not just "smart phones" get IP addresses. As to whether VZW needs public IP space for every phone -- I'll let others handle the rampant speculation on that front. -- Ben
participants (28)
-
Aaron Glenn -
Alexander Harrowell -
Ben Scott -
Buhrmaster, Gary -
Christopher Morrow -
Chuck Anderson -
Dave Temkin -
David Conrad -
Eliot Lear -
Frank Bulk -
Holmes,David A -
James Hess -
Jeff S Wheeler -
Jeffrey Lyon -
Joel Esler -
Joel Jaeggli -
Leo Bicknell -
Mark Andrews -
Martin Hannigan -
Matthias Leisi -
Mike Leber -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Paul Wall -
Scott Howard -
Skywing -
Steven M. Bellovin -
Tim Eberhard -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu