5 ms·
To be fair, this is a real problem that you sometimes can't ignore. There are plenty of situations where you need to filter out a bad actor by ip address.
by xorcist 5y ago
To be fair, this is a real problem that you sometimes can't ignore. There are plenty of situations where you need to filter out a bad actor by ip address.
- dspillett 5y ago> There are plenty of situations where you need to filter out a bad actor by ip address. It isn't so much that you need to do it that way, but that there is no more practical way despite the inherent problems. Which has effectively the same end result, but thinking that way highlights the fact that CGNAT and other IPv4 limit “solutions” cause as many problems as they solve.
- xorcist 5y agoAbsolutely, it is a good reason to avoid providers with CGNAT.
- dspillett 5y agoUnfortunately most users are not aware of the difference let along the implications, and those that are may not really have much of a choice of ISPs (maybe all the options available to them, or at least the affordable and otherwise practical options, use CGNAT). And in that circumstance there isn't going to be enough “voting with their feet” to make providers sit up and listen.