Comment on ISP put me behind NAT
poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 year agoIf they sell an “internet connection” then selling one behind a CGNAT is a breach of contract, because it is not a connection to the internet but only a selective forwarding service from within their intranet.
Similar to how the consumer protection agencies fought against fake speed promises and hidden “fair use” volume clauses, CGNAT should also be forbidden to be advertised as “internet”.
Schmeckinger@feddit.de 1 year ago
We have more internet connections than IPv4’s they can’t just pull new ones out of their ass.
poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
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.
Schmeckinger@feddit.de 1 year ago
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.
poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
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.