Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews () isc org>]

In message <1234128761.17985.352.camel () guardian inconcepts net>, Jeff S Wheeler
 writes:
> On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 14:37 -0800, Aaron Glenn 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>
> Realistically, I suppose Verizon Wireless is big enough to dictate to
> 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