Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers

[morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Randy Carpenter <rcarpen at network1.net> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Randy Carpenter
>> <rcarpen at 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