Comment

Comment on ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services

. . . nobody at home actually runs VOIP . . .

Plenty of people used Skype and Vonage. Both were subverted because they have to assume NAT is there.

. . . quick game servers don’t need static . . .

But they do work better without NAT. That’s somewhat separate from static addresses.

My old roommate and I had tons of problems back in the day when we tried to host an Internet game of C&C: Generals behind the same NAT. I couldn’t connect to him. He couldn’t connect to me. We could connect to each other but nobody outside could. It’s a real problem that’s only been “solved” because a lot of games have moved to publisher-hosted servers. Which has its own issues with longevity.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Fyi, Skype was officially killed by Microsoft on May 5th, earlier this month.

source
Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
As far as I’m aware Skype does not support actual VOIP calling anymore, at least according to Microsoft and the couple forums i just skimmed through. But it’s been probably 10+ years since I’ve actually used it or interacted with anyone who used it haha

And I was talking about static IPs, which are different. And at least in the US (in single family homes) its crazy unlikely that your router is behind any NAT. Unless you’re talking about CGNAT but anything short of a dedicated fiber run or dedicated wavelength (which are not options for residential people) you will be behind a CGNAT anyways. Even if you have a public IP.

source
- frezik@midwest.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Skype won’t be supporting anything at all very soon.
  
  What happened with Vonage is something that could happen with any kind of instant messaging, including things like Discord.
  
  With everything directly addressable (not just static addresses, but directly addressable), an IM/VoIP service can simply connect to the recipient. No servers are necessary in between, only routers. That doesn’t work with NAT (CG or otherwise), so what you have to do is create a server that everyone connects into, and then that forwards messages to the endpoint. This is:
  
  More expensive to operate
  
  Less reliable
  
  Slower
  
  A point for NSA eavesdropping (which almost certainly happened)
  
  This is largely invisible to end users until free services get enshittified or something goes wrong.
  
  Yes, it’s only tangentially related to static addresses, but it’s all part of the package. This is not the Internet we should have had.
  
  And at least in the US (in single family homes) its crazy unlikely that your router is behind any NAT
  
  Your router has NAT. That’s the problem. CGNAT is another problem. My C&C: Generals issues did not have CGNAT.
  
  source
  - Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    All routers have NAT, that’s sort of their entire role. Are you maybe talking about “double NATing” where you have your router behind the ISP modem/router?
    
    source
    frezik@midwest.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    No they fucking don’t, that’s not what routers do.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    Legume5534@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    That’s not the point of a router. It is one feature that most of not all now have, but it’s not their primary purpose.
    
    source