Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Randy Carpenter <rcarpen () network1 net> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Randy Carpenter
> > <rcarpen () network1 net> wrote:
> > > I suppose they are selectively letting certain devices in some
> > > areas. I get "der duh, what?" when I ask about it.
> >
> > uhm... you asked someone at their kiosks/stores about ipv<anything>??
> > you are a very, very brave man.
>
> No... the Business technical support via telephone. They knew what I was talking about, but no idea about what VZW's 
> plans are for it.

yea... so keep in mind that vzw and set(vzb(former mci/uunet) / vzt
(the phone company that owns the copper AND also deployed FIOS)) are
very, very different things.

I think inside vzb/vzt there's some oddness in their planning process
for v6, it's completely divorced from the vzw planning. If you want
answers about your vzw mifi/phone/tablet you can only ask vzw
kiosk/etc people :(

> > > It certainly does not work on the iPad "3" in Ohio. Not only that,
> > > but I can't even pay them to give me a stable IPv4 address,
> > > because if you get a static IP, it disables the hotspot
> > > functionality. Head-->Wall.
> >
> > good times!! mobile carriers live in what seems like a very different
> > world from the one the rest of the internet lives in :(
>
> Tell me about it. I would settle for a stable IPv4 address (dynamic is fine, but a "lease" time of something closer 
> to an hour, rather than 2 minutes)

maybe they already did the CGN thing to their network, lots and lots
of single IP sharing by port number! look, it's the future!

-chris

> -Randy