Re: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: StupidNAT tricks and how to stop them.)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> The other side of the coin is the fact that many devices will effectively
> require no more than a /128 because of the way they connect up to the
> network. For example cell phones will be serviced on plans where the
> subscription fee is per device. Verizon, T-mobile, cingular need no more
> than one /64 each to service those networks.

Uhh...

- I thought they actually do (should) give /64 per phone, so that
  standar IPv6 address configuration works (you get IPv6 link local
  and global addresses from RA).

- phone can use more that one address if you use the phone connection
  to link your local network to the global internet without NAT,
  (needs some "nasty" ND-proxy hacks though..)

All Symbian phones have full IPv4/IPv6 dual stack on them already.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]