5 ms·
Seriously? They assign internal addresses (10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16) to all customers? Are you able to name the ISP?
by nmc 10y ago
Seriously? They assign internal addresses (10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16) to all customers?
Are you able to name the ISP?
- knorker 10y agoIs it rare? I think BT's cheaper broadbands do this, for one.
- tokenizerrr 10y agoI certainly have never encountered this, and would be really unhappy if my ISP pulled this stunt.
- j3097736 10y agoOnly the early players get the luxury of large IP pools, everyone else has had to resort to carrier-grade NAT. Fortunately some of those can un-NAT you if you ask politely.
- vertex-four 10y agoBT does this unless you either have an Unlimited package or opt out through their website.
- the8472 10y agoThat's fairly normal these days. The combination of ipv6 + cgnat for ipv4 (carried over the v6) is called DS-Lite[0]. ISPs in asian countries have been doing that for years now european and american ISPs have been ramping it up recently too. [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6333 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6333
- userbinator 10y agoISPs in asian countries have been doing that for years And they usually call it "web access" or something similar, never speaking of an "Internet connection". Which is what it is, a way to access websites and usually not much else.
- clarry 10y agoI think we need a mandate for ISPs to make it clear when the product they're offering is not internet connection.
- luchs 10y agoIs it really? Apart from the missing port-forwarding, DS-Lite seems to be one of the better solutions to the IPv4 shortage to me. There's only a single NAT at the ISP, the local router tunnels IPv4 packages directly to the AFTR. For peer-to-peer applications, both UDP and TCP hole punching work fine. Maybe some ISPs will implement the Port Control Protocol [1] at some point, which would allow port forwarding with the DS-Lite NATs. [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6887 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6887
- the8472 10y ago> For peer-to-peer applications, both UDP and TCP hole punching work fine. Sadly, that's only half correct. Yes, nat traversal usually works to establish connections. But in practice port mappings are not necessarily the same thing as NAT table entries. If your p2p application contacts a lot of endpoints, even from the same source port, this can eventually lead to saturation. At that point you'll get packet drops and ICMP errors. In other words, on some aftr implementations p2p can lead to resource exhaustion, leading to a pretty bad ipv4 experience. > Maybe some ISPs will implement the Port Control Protocol [1] at some point, which would allow port forwarding with the DS-Lite NATs. Some already do. The CPE can forward local mappings to the AFTR.
- ckuehl 10y agoISPs usually use the designated block (100.64.0.0/10) for this to avoid collisions with home networks: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598#section-7 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598#section-7 Webpass is an example of a "good" ISP that does this. It's my only qualm with them. Besides that they are outstanding. IPv6 works great.
- klackerz 10y agoISP's in India have started using this method. I am currently using such an ISP.