103
ISP put me behind NAT
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
103 points (92.6% liked)
Selfhosted
39677 readers
680 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is a myth. There are large swath of IPv4 address spaces totally unused and many ISPs hoard them without actually using them.
An IPv6 only internet connection would also still be miles better than CGNAT connection.
How? You can literally turn IPv4 off on your whole network, or selectively by device. But if you turn off your IPv4 you will get cut off of a good chunk of the internet.
And the only reason we have unused IPv4's is because a big part of the internet is behind NAT of some kind like CGNAT.
There is nothing wrong with an organization sharing an single IPv4 internally via NAT, but if your ISP sells you a connection to the internet, this by definition means you get a unique public IP address, otherwise it isn't an internet connection.
IPv6 support could be better for sure, but it is still much better than not having an internet connection at all as in the case of a CGNAT.
CGNAT usually only applies to the IPv4. The IPv6 prefix you get is usually public.
"Usually"? In my experience usually this is not the case. Starlink for example promised to make ipv6 available like that, but AFAIK it is still CGNAT only.
I can only talk how it is in Germany, where CGNAT with a public IPv6 prefix is the norm and a public IPv4 costs extra money unless you have a legacy contract.
In addition this also depends on the ISP.
I have experience with Vodafone, Deutsche Glasfaser and Unitymedia and they all did it like this. It also might depend on the state.
Kinda expected that.
Vodafone usually does DS-Lite tunnel
Deutsche Glasfaser is a new player so CG-Nat was to be expected.
No it doesn't. It means you have access to the internet through that company's infrastructure. You still have full access to the internet behind a CGNAT even if you can't be reached directly from the internet.
An internet connection by definition is two-way. The internet was designed as a network of interconnected computers. A one-way only connection like through a CGNAT is preventing you from doing a lot of things the internet was designed for.
You have a 2 way connection as facilitated by the CGNAT gateway that routes responses back to your network.
If you have no unique public IP there are a lot of things you can't do, so it isn't a true two way connection.
No, it just doesn't fit in your imagination, but it is a 2 way connection by definition. It's also everything the ISP promises when they give you an internet connection.
Sorry, but you are using a wrong definition of an internet connection. A internet connection has by definition a unique public IP, otherwise it is only a intranet connection. That has nothing to do with my imagination and I can assure you that I would never pay for a CGNAT connection as most of what I do with my internet connection is not possible with that crap.
Your definition does not make it the definition. Nobody really cares about your definitions or what you would do with it. People care about the accepted definitions and what is the expectation.
That's like saying internet is not internet. And I very much expect my internet connection to have a public IP.
No, I'm just saying you're wrong at this point. You just keep proving that to be true with every reply.
So I am wrong for saying water is water and not fire?
Except you keep claiming it's fire. It's not fire, so stop calling it such.
You are extremly confused, sorry to say. Please look up the difference between "Internet" and "Intranet".
No, I don't think I am. You're just wrong and don't want to admit it. Some self reflection will do you good.
There is nothing to admit. You are simply not willing to concede that the original definition of "internet" is still valid and watering that down serves no purpose other that muddling the waters and allowing huge corporations to increase their profits by cheating on their customers.
See above comment for reply then sprinkle a bit of irony for the projection coming from you.
Well, if you insist on stanning for multi billion dollar companies that are cheating on their customers then I guess all we can do is to disagree.
No, just disagreeing the bullshit of a clueless internet stranger.
Ignorance is bliss I guess.
Yeah, but you really don't need to be an ass and flaunt it everywhere.
You started with the impolite language...