nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 on mobile networks, was Update to BCP-38?
From: Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 13:19:11 -0700
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:40 PM John R. Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
In article <d3f78384-9b25-c4c4-495f-5dcc0e0c1925 () satchell net>, Stephen Satchell <nanog () nanog org> wrote:My AT&T cell phone has both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The IPv4 address is from my access point; the IPv6 address appears to be a public address.My AT&T cellphone (via MVNO Tracfone) has a 10/8 IPv4 address and IPv6 address 2600:380:28be:8b34:2504:2096:6ac7:6262. But when I connect to a web site that reports the connecting address, it says I'm 2600:387:a:9a2::8. What's going on there? Those are both within at&t's 2600:300::/24', but am I behind a NAT66? An aggressive web cache?
This is a unique proxying feature of AT&T Tmobile US, VZ, and Sprint all have IPv6, but only AT&T has this behavior afaik.
-- Regards, John Levine, johnl () taugh com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 on mobile networks, was Update to BCP-38? John R. Levine (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 on mobile networks, was Update to BCP-38? Ca By (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 on mobile networks, was Update to BCP-38? Brandon Jackson via NANOG (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 on mobile networks, was Update to BCP-38? Mark Delany (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 on mobile networks, was Update to BCP-38? Brandon Jackson via NANOG (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 on mobile networks, was Update to BCP-38? Ca By (Oct 03)