nanog mailing list archives
Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
From: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:16:09 +0000
There are major GSM-land wireless operators who provide service to devices like Novatel's line of pocket-size WLAN hotspots. You can just buy one and stick a SIM in it, but some of the ops offer them as part of a business user package. I hope that means they get a proper IP or more handed out from the SGSN, as otherwise this would be a true orgy of NAT. (Top posting on mobile) "Jack Bates" <jbates () brightok net> wrote:
On 2/10/2011 9:11 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:I was explaining to my wife today how it felt like the nanog listwent to 3x the typical mail volume recently with all the IPv6 stuff this month. Why the pro-IPv6 crowd was happy, the anti-IPv6 crowd is groaning (including those that truly despise the whole thing, etc..) I was having fun discussing with my wife how ARIN stuff ended up on NANOG, NANOG stuff ended up on PPML, and I've been listening and participating in debates concerning IPv6 and CGN (apparently BEHAVE WG adopted CGN over LSN) on 4 different mailing lists. To be honest, though. I'm pro-IPv6, but I'm not happy. Anyone who is happy doesn't care about those innocent people who are ignorant of what is going on and why.I honestly think that the LSN situations won't be as bad as some ofus think. The big carriers have already been doing some flavor of this with their cellular/data networks. Doing this on some of the consumer networks will likely not be "that much" pain. Obviously the pain will vary per subscriber/home. <snip lots of good stuff I agree with>IPv4 is "dead" in my opinion. Not dead as in useless, but to thepoint where I don't think there is value in spending a lot of time worrying about the v4 side of the world when so much needs to be fixed in IPv6 land. Service requirements in cellular networks are considerably different than wireline. Apparently, most cell customers don't hook a CPE router into their cell network and play their game consoles over it, along with many other situations. This actually means that most often, they are running a single stage NAT44 LSN (which still breaks stuff, but most of the things it would break aren't normally transiting the cellular networks). <snip more good stuff I agree with> I agree. However, because the largest networks and corporations decided (and some still do) to wait until the last moment to deal with IPv6, we will have to deal with IPv4 in much worse conditions. I know that there are large cellular networks which use DoD bogons behind huge LSN implementations. I know that some networks apparently aren't happy with using DoD bogons and would like to waste even more space. The best solution for such a case (and to solve all arguments on the matter) is to secure assurances on the bogons so that they can be safely used. Jack
-- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Current thread:
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers, (continued)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Majdi S. Abbas (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers John Curran (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jack Bates (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jack Bates (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers John Curran (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jack Bates (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers John Curran (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jack Bates (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jared Mauch (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jack Bates (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Alexander Harrowell (Feb 11)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers John Curran (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Joel Jaeggli (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jared Mauch (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Mark Andrews (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Robert Bonomi (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Benson Schliesser (Feb 05)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers John Curran (Feb 05)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Benson Schliesser (Feb 05)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Owen DeLong (Feb 05)