5 ms·
> problem where your services are sitting on 240.0.0.0/4, but some customers have routers that just drop the packets to that destination. On the other hand, as
by kees99 3y ago
> problem where your services are sitting on 240.0.0.0/4, but some customers have routers that just drop the packets to that destination.
On the other hand, as an ISP, you can pull some of those addresses for your CGNAT's external address pool. Your customers' gear will never see those. Server side will, though. But then, troubleshooting cloud/server front-end to reliably let those through sounds like a more doable chore?
- tjoff 3y agoYou can still connect to other non-nated individuals that might not expect that.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> On the other hand, as an ISP, you can pull some of those addresses for your CGNAT's external address pool. You're right but ugh, CGNAT. We just had fiber deployed here (yay!) and then I got assigned an ISP that has me behind CGNAT. The list of things that can make icky Spectrum better than fiber (for me) is super short, but CGNAT in the 1 or 2 spot.
- p1mrx 3y agoCGNAT will become common for residential IPv4, because math. It's more reasonable to expect ISPs to provide native IPv6 alongside CGNAT, than avoid CGNAT entirely.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> It's more reasonable to expect ISPs to provide native IPv6 alongside CGNAT, than avoid CGNAT entirely. You'd think so but of our fiber ISPs, 0 of 8 support IPv6 or have plans to do so - inc the NATty ones.
- p1mrx 3y agoWell, expectations do not always match reality. I suggest that you complain about their lack of IPv6, and encourage other customers to do the same.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> CGNAT will become common for residential IPv4, because math. Oh and thanks for inserting this dystopic hellscape into my awareness, btw. I hope you're wrong for a long time.