4 ms·

I think it's perfectly functional for end users. In fact, I've been behind a triple NAT for years (CGNAT + 2 routers at home) and I have no problems at all. Th

by ejbam 7y ago

I think it's perfectly functional for end users. In fact, I've been behind a triple NAT for years (CGNAT + 2 routers at home) and I have no problems at all. This is not 1995 when you needed to connect to other users of the Internet to get stuff done.

kstrauser 7y ago
Unless you like low-latency video chats. Or online gaming. Or VPNs. Or reliability. Or remote desktop. Fundamentally, TCP won't allow more than 64K connections from one IP to a single port on another IP. That's a hard limit on the number of users behind a NAT of any kind who can simultaneously connect to a given service on a fixed port. Right now my ISP's resolvers are returning exactly two IPs for google.com. If it were infected with CGNAT, at most 128K of my ISP's customers could use Google at the same time. The real number is much smaller as fetching a web page typically opens lots of connections. No, I stand by it: CGNAT is dead tech that only has a short window of feasibility. It breaks way more than a migration to IPv6 would, and it's a short-sighted solution for the previous century.
- ejbam 7y ago
  >Unless you like low-latency video chats. Or online gaming. Or VPNs. Or reliability. Or remote desktop. I have all of that with CGNAT. >Fundamentally, TCP won't allow more than 64K connections from one IP to a single port on another IP. That's a hard limit on the number of users behind a NAT of any kind who can simultaneously connect to a given service on a fixed port. Right now my ISP's resolvers are returning exactly two IPs for google.com. If it were infected with CGNAT, at most 128K of my ISP's customers could use Google at the same time. The real number is much smaller as fetching a web page typically opens lots of connections. First, Google has tons of IP addresses, not only two. Second, ISPs with CGNAT servers don't have only one for all customers.

by ejbam 7y ago

kstrauser 7y ago

Unless you like low-latency video chats. Or online gaming. Or VPNs. Or reliability. Or remote desktop. Fundamentally, TCP won't allow more than 64K connections from one IP to a single port on another IP. That's a hard limit on the number of users behind a NAT of any kind who can simultaneously connect to a given service on a fixed port. Right now my ISP's resolvers are returning exactly two IPs for google.com. If it were infected with CGNAT, at most 128K of my ISP's customers could use Google at the same time. The real number is much smaller as fetching a web page typically opens lots of connections. No, I stand by it: CGNAT is dead tech that only has a short window of feasibility. It breaks way more than a migration to IPv6 would, and it's a short-sighted solution for the previous century.

ejbam 7y ago
>Unless you like low-latency video chats. Or online gaming. Or VPNs. Or reliability. Or remote desktop. I have all of that with CGNAT. >Fundamentally, TCP won't allow more than 64K connections from one IP to a single port on another IP. That's a hard limit on the number of users behind a NAT of any kind who can simultaneously connect to a given service on a fixed port. Right now my ISP's resolvers are returning exactly two IPs for google.com. If it were infected with CGNAT, at most 128K of my ISP's customers could use Google at the same time. The real number is much smaller as fetching a web page typically opens lots of connections. First, Google has tons of IP addresses, not only two. Second, ISPs with CGNAT servers don't have only one for all customers.