4 ms·
He's an Australian, and so am I. His ISP (Optus) doesn't go out their way to block ports. However, he says he's using a AC800s 4G/LTE modem and backs that up
by rstuart4133 5y ago
He's an Australian, and so am I. His ISP (Optus) doesn't go out their way to block ports.
However, he says he's using a AC800s 4G/LTE modem and backs that up by saying is using mobile data. The default mobile data service from all telco's will use CGNAT and will hand him some 10.0.0.0 address. I presume that's because mobile phones don't run servers as a rule, so no one notices and it saves them a bit of money. They don't deliberately block any particular port, but CGNAT effectively blocks all of them.
He could pay a extra and get mobile data with a static IP Address if he wished. Not from Optus - they discontinued that service (which gives an indication of popular it is), but other virtual carriers based on Optus still offer it. I guess it's not worth the money to him.
Everything supports IPv6 now, and IPv6 happily carries IPv4. Why the telco's are still dicking around with CGNAT and IPv4 is a bit of a mystery.
- easton 5y agoI seem to recall hearing somewhere on HN that some ISPs even turn CGNAT on for IPv6 connections (in fact, I'm pretty sure AT&T's LTE has it). I have no idea why, other than people being so used to packets not routing to their local box that they've disabled their firewalls. The people who made that decision probably went to the same school that told network admins to disable IPv6 on VPN connections.
- fomine3 5y agoDepending how v4 over v6 implemented. NAT64/DNS64 don't use CGNAT for v4/v4 (but use v4/v6 NAT, may call proxy), but 464XLAT, MAP-E, and DS-lite is still CGNAT. I prefer v4/v4 CGNAT over NAT64/DNS64 for transparency. Some CGNAT allow to forward port (but on limited range).