Comment on ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services
frezik@midwest.social 3 weeks agoSkype 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.
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?
frezik@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
No they fucking don’t, that’s not what routers do.
Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That literally is though? NAT stands for Network Address Translation. It’ll take you public IP and translate those packets to use your internal one.
If your computer has an address that starts with
169,168, or10there is a NAT somewhere in your network.Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
That is NAT, yes. But that is only one small function that a router can perform, and not all routers have NAT enabled. You only need NAT if your ISP only allows you to use a single IP address.
That’s not actually true. I can create such a network without connecting it to the internet, no NAT. I can create a second network, again, no NAT. I can then use a gateway router that allows any node on the first network to reach any node on the second. That router is still not doing any NAT. It’s just passing traffic between two networks.
frezik@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
Have you ever chained three Cisco 2600 routers together and then successfully ping’d clients on each end? Do you know what BGP is? OSPF? Do you know the difference between routing and routed protocols?
I know you don’t, because people who do don’t make the claims you’re making.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Not really.
And even as a network amateur I know that its
10.0.0.0/8
172.16.0.0/12
192.168.0.0/16
and 169.254.0.0/16 is not even routable so no dice with NAT.
So someone can connect to you just with with a public IPv4 starting with 192.x.x.x
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.