4 ms·
A whole lot of ISPs are doing CGNAT for IPv4 now, mostly in Asia. Starlink does it. It's mostly OK but has a lot of drawbacks, particularly IP-based geolocation
by NelsonMinar 4y ago
A whole lot of ISPs are doing CGNAT for IPv4 now, mostly in Asia. Starlink does it. It's mostly OK but has a lot of drawbacks, particularly IP-based geolocation. (Starlink does not support IPv6 although they seem to be rolling it out this month.)
- heywire 4y agoMy ISP (Metronet, Ohio, US) uses CGNAT. I’ve had their service for about 15 months now, and it has been pretty much uneventful. Maybe a handful of times I’ve gotten a captcha on something, but for the most part, it’s just fine. I also don’t see thousands of blocked connection attempts a day either, so there is a plus side. I just use Tailscale should I need to access anything at home while I’m away.
- mort96 4y agoBeing behind CGNAT has downsides yes, for example being unable to ever host anything; you become relegated to a consumer who's dependent on the big hosting companies to ever have an Internet presence. But geolocation? I don't want everyone to be able to get my location! Breaking IP-based geolocation is a benefit of CGNAT, not a drawback.
- NelsonMinar 4y agoIt's a huge PITA though. I'm near Sacramento but my IP looks like it's in Los Angeles. It screws up a surprising number of things, particularly local TV streaming services. IP geolocation is a bad idea for lots of reasons. Unfortunately it's also a reality of how services work.
- noipv6 4y ago47.57% of observed requests coming out of as14593 is ipv6, as of two days ago: https://twitter.com/noIPv6/status/1600527249282895879 https://twitter.com/noIPv6/status/1600527249282895879 & to be clear, that is CRAZY growth! edit: that's traffic to monitoring resources, not in general, sorry /facepalm
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kps 4y agoIP-based geolocation is fundamentally broken. Making it visibly broken in more cases is good.
- alam2000 4y ago