7 ms·

His point is that you're managing alright because you live in a country where your ISP can give you a public IP address. The author lives in a country where tha

His point is that you're managing alright because you live in a country where your ISP can give you a public IP address. The author lives in a country where that is not possible and accesses the Internet behind layers of NAT.

LoganDark 7mo ago
What's the difference, other than port forwarding? Does NAT cause some sort of unique issue that makes existence miserable?
- jofla_net 7mo ago
  Hole punching, which has various forms, may or may not work. This means if you're doing something realtime, you may need to stick a server(reachable endpoint) in between it, at the very least reducing performance.
  - LoganDark 7mo ago
    I have never seen any situation where this is not already necessary other than UPnP which already almost never works reliably. A publicly-addressable relay is already practically non-negotiable for anything over the internet.
    - lern_too_spel 7mo ago
      IPv6 everywhere makes that not necessary, which is what the author is pushing for.
    - lmm 7mo ago
      uPnP works fine though? What was the problem you had with it?
      - LoganDark 7mo ago
        For one, monopolies disabling it by default on their equipment? I remember some years ago having to guess the admin password at a vacation house so I could enable UPnP. It's usually framed as a security vulnerability, even.
      - vel0city 7mo ago
        uPnP fails when multiple devices are fighting over the same port assignments. uPnP fails when people have it disabled, as has been recommended many times over the years.
    - direwolf20 7mo ago
      Without NAT, it wouldn't be. That's the point.
- throw0101c 7mo ago
  > What's the difference, other than port forwarding? Does NAT cause some sort of unique issue that makes existence miserable? The difference is that your home router does not get a public IP on its WAN interface, but perhaps the non-publicly-routable 100.64.0.0/10 [1] with CG-NAT. So if you don't have a public IP address, how exactly are you supposed to forward anything? What is the other end supposed to connect to as an IP address? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_shared_address_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_shared_address_space
  - LoganDark 7mo ago
    > The difference is that your home router does not get a public IP on its WAN interface, but perhaps the non-publicly-routable 100.64.0.0/10 [1] with CG-NAT. Yes...? I know that, but does that cause any issues in practice other than death of P2P? > So if you don't have a public IP address, how exactly are you supposed to forward anything? What is the other end supposed to connect to as an IP address? I already mentioned port forwarding because with something like CG-NAT, it is often not possible (or not allowed). But I am not aware of any issues that stem from this other than an inability for others to establish connections directly to you. In fact, my network has a public IPv4 without CG-NAT and yet I am already used to being unable to receive data other than back through a TCP stream. That is the entire reason reverse proxy tunnels (such as ngrok, etc.) exist.
    - throw0101d 7mo ago
      > Yes...? I know that, but does that cause any issues in practice other than death of P2P? Well: > If you’re a gamer using PS5, Xbox, or PC in 2025, running into Double NAT or CGNAT port forwarding issues can make online play nearly impossible. Many 5G home internet and satellite services (like T-Mobile Home Internet and Starlink) put users behind carrier-grade NAT, which blocks direct connections and port forwarding. The good news? There are still workarounds that can open up your connection for smoother online gaming. * https://www.modemguides.com/blogs/modemguides-blog/double-nat-cgnat-in-2025-fix-online-gaming-ps5-xbox-pc-and-port-forwarding-on-5g-home-internet https://www.modemguides.com/blogs/modemguides-blog/double-na... See also: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT#Disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT#Disadvantage... When we went from dial-up speeds to DSL/cable to fibre we were able to have all sorts new applications due to higher bandwidth. Smartphones are capable of all sorts of things because they're always online: back in the day people used to talk about "being online" and saying "sorry, I was offline", because you only had connectivity at the office or at home (where you dialed into your ISP). What kind of applications and services are not being invented because we're stuck with the current non-P2P / centralized setup of IPv4+NAT?
- kalleboo 7mo ago
  It makes everything slower and more expensive.
- lmm 7mo ago
  "What's the difference other than the difference?". Not being able to forward ports means I can't play Tricky Towers with my friend (who isn't technical enough to join a VPN with me and would have privacy concerns about doing so).
- orangeboats 7mo ago
  >other than port forwarding >other Well you just handwaved away the most significant difference between NAT and native IP, obviously there won't be any major difference to discuss about anymore! No, we can't ignore port forwarding. The key thing to realize about NAT is that someone owns the NAT. Back then, the NAT lived inside each of the home routers, so even if you have a "strict" NAT (endpoint-dependent mapping NAT, i.e. one that doesn't allow for hole-punching), you can easily bypass it by setting up a manual port forwarding entry. With CGNAT that's no longer possible, you do not control the NAT. If your ISP decides to screw you over, you essentially do not have a choice but to get a relay, which needlessly costs you money. --- But if you really want to know what advantages native IP has over NAT, I'd say the lack of keepalive packets (to keep a holepunched NAT entry from being removed) is a pretty nice thing.
  - LoganDark 7mo ago
    What is this entitled mindset that somehow people without CG-NAT already benefit from their public IPv4? The only benefit I get from port forwarding is being able to expose my Plex media server to the wider internet, and Tailscale and Steam Networking being able to establish P2P. But even UDP should work through CG-NAT. So you can't hole-punch over WAN -- I've never encountered even a single piece of software that needs that except for servers. Port forwarding is nice, but everyone already knows you can hardly run a server at home (even in countries where port forwarding is standard). It's been this way for as long as I can remember. So yes I handwave it away because it doesn't matter. If that's the only drawback to CG-NAT (other than single IP address bans applying to entire nations or something) I hardly understand why it warrants treatment as such a terrible awful disaster.
    - orangeboats 7mo ago
      >What is this entitled mindset that somehow people without CG-NAT already benefit from their public IPv4? I will raise you the opposite point: why deprive people of their ability to have a globally addressable IP address? >But even UDP should work through CG-NAT. I have already told you why it is wrong to make such as assumption, haven't I? I have heard of stories coming from China and Vietnam that some ISPs implement so-called "type 4 NAT", otherwise known as symmetric NAT or NAT with endpoint-dependent mapping. This kind of NAT is NOT hole-punchable. And because you don't control the NAT, you are simply SOL if one day your NAT decides to switch to it. Can't even use Tailscale without significant service degradation now, ouch. Granted, I have only heard about it in Vietnam and China, and it's not a national thing -- only some provinces seem to have symmetric NAT implemented. But I feel the need to remind you that the ISPs there were able to get away with it, because the two countries have significant IPv6 presence. [0] >Port forwarding is nice, but everyone already knows you can hardly run a server at home (even in countries where port forwarding is standard). You can hardly run a server at home because we have been facing address space depletion since the dot com bubble. >I hardly understand why it warrants treatment as such a terrible awful disaster. You haven't faced an overloaded CGNAT gateway, have you? [1] [0]: https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/XD https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/XD [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/1as8dvy/is_there_a_way_to_force_ipv6_on_imgur/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/1as8dvy/is_there_a_wa...
wmf 7mo ago
It's possible for Indian ISPs to buy IPv4 addresses and assign them to customers. Maybe not for $5/month but if you're willing to pay US prices (plus tax) you should be able to get US quality service.
- labcomputer 7mo ago
  Yes, but they can't do that if every Indian wants one, and they especially can't do that if every Chinese person wants one at the same time. IPv4 is 32 bits. It has a hard cap of ~4 billion addresses. China and India alone have 2.85 billion people. Add in the United States and Europe, and now nobody else gets an IP address. South America, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Africa, the middle east, the rest of Southeast Asia, etc. don't get to use the internet. That's 4 billion people who don't get to use the internet.
  - wmf 7mo ago
    My point in mentioning pricing is that the Indian and Chinese middle class can have IPv4 addresses; the rest can't.
netdevme 7mo ago
You can even buy a block, but the smallest one has 256 addresses.

LoganDark 7mo ago

What's the difference, other than port forwarding? Does NAT cause some sort of unique issue that makes existence miserable?

jofla_net 7mo ago
Hole punching, which has various forms, may or may not work. This means if you're doing something realtime, you may need to stick a server(reachable endpoint) in between it, at the very least reducing performance.
- LoganDark 7mo ago
  I have never seen any situation where this is not already necessary other than UPnP which already almost never works reliably. A publicly-addressable relay is already practically non-negotiable for anything over the internet.
  - lern_too_spel 7mo ago
    IPv6 everywhere makes that not necessary, which is what the author is pushing for.
  - lmm 7mo ago
    uPnP works fine though? What was the problem you had with it?
    - LoganDark 7mo ago
      For one, monopolies disabling it by default on their equipment? I remember some years ago having to guess the admin password at a vacation house so I could enable UPnP. It's usually framed as a security vulnerability, even.
    - vel0city 7mo ago
      uPnP fails when multiple devices are fighting over the same port assignments. uPnP fails when people have it disabled, as has been recommended many times over the years.
  - direwolf20 7mo ago
    Without NAT, it wouldn't be. That's the point.
throw0101c 7mo ago
> What's the difference, other than port forwarding? Does NAT cause some sort of unique issue that makes existence miserable? The difference is that your home router does not get a public IP on its WAN interface, but perhaps the non-publicly-routable 100.64.0.0/10 [1] with CG-NAT. So if you don't have a public IP address, how exactly are you supposed to forward anything? What is the other end supposed to connect to as an IP address? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_shared_address_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_shared_address_space
- LoganDark 7mo ago
  > The difference is that your home router does not get a public IP on its WAN interface, but perhaps the non-publicly-routable 100.64.0.0/10 [1] with CG-NAT. Yes...? I know that, but does that cause any issues in practice other than death of P2P? > So if you don't have a public IP address, how exactly are you supposed to forward anything? What is the other end supposed to connect to as an IP address? I already mentioned port forwarding because with something like CG-NAT, it is often not possible (or not allowed). But I am not aware of any issues that stem from this other than an inability for others to establish connections directly to you. In fact, my network has a public IPv4 without CG-NAT and yet I am already used to being unable to receive data other than back through a TCP stream. That is the entire reason reverse proxy tunnels (such as ngrok, etc.) exist.
  - throw0101d 7mo ago
    > Yes...? I know that, but does that cause any issues in practice other than death of P2P? Well: > If you’re a gamer using PS5, Xbox, or PC in 2025, running into Double NAT or CGNAT port forwarding issues can make online play nearly impossible. Many 5G home internet and satellite services (like T-Mobile Home Internet and Starlink) put users behind carrier-grade NAT, which blocks direct connections and port forwarding. The good news? There are still workarounds that can open up your connection for smoother online gaming. * https://www.modemguides.com/blogs/modemguides-blog/double-nat-cgnat-in-2025-fix-online-gaming-ps5-xbox-pc-and-port-forwarding-on-5g-home-internet https://www.modemguides.com/blogs/modemguides-blog/double-na... See also: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT#Disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT#Disadvantage... When we went from dial-up speeds to DSL/cable to fibre we were able to have all sorts new applications due to higher bandwidth. Smartphones are capable of all sorts of things because they're always online: back in the day people used to talk about "being online" and saying "sorry, I was offline", because you only had connectivity at the office or at home (where you dialed into your ISP). What kind of applications and services are not being invented because we're stuck with the current non-P2P / centralized setup of IPv4+NAT?
kalleboo 7mo ago
It makes everything slower and more expensive.
lmm 7mo ago
"What's the difference other than the difference?". Not being able to forward ports means I can't play Tricky Towers with my friend (who isn't technical enough to join a VPN with me and would have privacy concerns about doing so).
orangeboats 7mo ago
>other than port forwarding >other Well you just handwaved away the most significant difference between NAT and native IP, obviously there won't be any major difference to discuss about anymore! No, we can't ignore port forwarding. The key thing to realize about NAT is that someone owns the NAT. Back then, the NAT lived inside each of the home routers, so even if you have a "strict" NAT (endpoint-dependent mapping NAT, i.e. one that doesn't allow for hole-punching), you can easily bypass it by setting up a manual port forwarding entry. With CGNAT that's no longer possible, you do not control the NAT. If your ISP decides to screw you over, you essentially do not have a choice but to get a relay, which needlessly costs you money. --- But if you really want to know what advantages native IP has over NAT, I'd say the lack of keepalive packets (to keep a holepunched NAT entry from being removed) is a pretty nice thing.
- LoganDark 7mo ago
  What is this entitled mindset that somehow people without CG-NAT already benefit from their public IPv4? The only benefit I get from port forwarding is being able to expose my Plex media server to the wider internet, and Tailscale and Steam Networking being able to establish P2P. But even UDP should work through CG-NAT. So you can't hole-punch over WAN -- I've never encountered even a single piece of software that needs that except for servers. Port forwarding is nice, but everyone already knows you can hardly run a server at home (even in countries where port forwarding is standard). It's been this way for as long as I can remember. So yes I handwave it away because it doesn't matter. If that's the only drawback to CG-NAT (other than single IP address bans applying to entire nations or something) I hardly understand why it warrants treatment as such a terrible awful disaster.
  - orangeboats 7mo ago
    >What is this entitled mindset that somehow people without CG-NAT already benefit from their public IPv4? I will raise you the opposite point: why deprive people of their ability to have a globally addressable IP address? >But even UDP should work through CG-NAT. I have already told you why it is wrong to make such as assumption, haven't I? I have heard of stories coming from China and Vietnam that some ISPs implement so-called "type 4 NAT", otherwise known as symmetric NAT or NAT with endpoint-dependent mapping. This kind of NAT is NOT hole-punchable. And because you don't control the NAT, you are simply SOL if one day your NAT decides to switch to it. Can't even use Tailscale without significant service degradation now, ouch. Granted, I have only heard about it in Vietnam and China, and it's not a national thing -- only some provinces seem to have symmetric NAT implemented. But I feel the need to remind you that the ISPs there were able to get away with it, because the two countries have significant IPv6 presence. [0] >Port forwarding is nice, but everyone already knows you can hardly run a server at home (even in countries where port forwarding is standard). You can hardly run a server at home because we have been facing address space depletion since the dot com bubble. >I hardly understand why it warrants treatment as such a terrible awful disaster. You haven't faced an overloaded CGNAT gateway, have you? [1] [0]: https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/XD https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/XD [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/1as8dvy/is_there_a_way_to_force_ipv6_on_imgur/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/1as8dvy/is_there_a_wa...

wmf 7mo ago

It's possible for Indian ISPs to buy IPv4 addresses and assign them to customers. Maybe not for $5/month but if you're willing to pay US prices (plus tax) you should be able to get US quality service.

labcomputer 7mo ago
Yes, but they can't do that if every Indian wants one, and they especially can't do that if every Chinese person wants one at the same time. IPv4 is 32 bits. It has a hard cap of ~4 billion addresses. China and India alone have 2.85 billion people. Add in the United States and Europe, and now nobody else gets an IP address. South America, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Africa, the middle east, the rest of Southeast Asia, etc. don't get to use the internet. That's 4 billion people who don't get to use the internet.
- wmf 7mo ago
  My point in mentioning pricing is that the Indian and Chinese middle class can have IPv4 addresses; the rest can't.

netdevme 7mo ago

You can even buy a block, but the smallest one has 256 addresses.