4 ms·
Carrier-imposed NAT is a horrible thing, and it isn't clear to me why connections can't be given _at least_ a publicly accessible IPv6 address.
by zbrozek 5y ago
Carrier-imposed NAT is a horrible thing, and it isn't clear to me why connections can't be given _at least_ a publicly accessible IPv6 address.
- Jedd 5y agoCan confirm that it's truly horrendous. Since switching to that grade of service I have consistently had captcha challenges every time I go through paypal (despite it saying 'we recognise you on this device...'), my Unifi VPN fails to work, despite following several guides specifically for double NAT (I'll probably end up with wireguard), and most recently my O365 endpoint failed to talk to me, as one of the half-dozen IPv4 addresses they route out of had been marked by Spamhaus.org, which a) is identified a woeful arrangement in itself, and b) took me two days to get rectified by the ISP by switching which address I came out with (a minor change which resulted in a 24 hour total outage). I did ask about IPv6 - but nothing about that experience screamed 'we're ready to move our customers to IPv6', as you could imagine.
- conradev 5y agoT-Mobile switched from CGNAT to 464XLAT and an IPv6-only network something like 7 years ago … but I believe they heavily filter the traffic in said IPv6 network, so that the addresses are not reachable