Joel
It's an absurdity that the clearly impossible is in fact the defacto
deployment model.
This is the case for this specific Wireless provider and the particular
APN you are connected to. The sum of all Wireless providers do not use
RFC1918 (some do, and some do not, and some use both RFC1918 and squat).
Your provider is welcome to choose any space they want at this point.
But, if given a choice I wonder if they would switch to help eliminate
challenges.
I can say that it is in fact very very challenging keeping RFC1918 space
negotiated cleanly (avoid overlap) in the Wireless space.
Other representatives from other Wireless providers have also stated that
they use Squat. I would suggest that the defacto is a range of address
blocks which at times includes RFC1918, squat in other cases and public
IPs as well (not common, but used at times).
On a side note (upshot), it's nice to see IPv6 on your LTE (real 4G)
connection.
Regards,
Victor K
this is a verizon 4g card...
en3: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1428
ether 64:99:5d:fd:b2:d4
inet6 fe80::6699:5dff:fefd:b2d4%en3 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0xc
inet6 2600:1010:b005:c97d:6699:5dff:fefd:b2d4 prefixlen 64 autoconf
inet6 2600:1010:b005:c97d:b963:23e7:3ae1:e287 prefixlen 64 autoconf
temporary
inet 10.170.127.207 netmask 0xffffffe0 broadcast 10.170.127.223
media: autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>)
status: active
10.170.127.192/27 link#12 UCS 2 0 en3
10.170.127.193 4c:47:45:56:44:58 UHLWIi 422 34 en3
1197
10.170.127.207 127.0.0.1 UHS 0 0 lo0
Furthermore, I would suggest the draft include the following in
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf