Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Dave Temkin <davet1 () gmail com>]

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