Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

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