You must log in or # to comment.
As Snowden, Assange, and other whistleblowers have shown, in The Land of the Free™ the carriers are in bed with the government. I doubt it’s all that different in other Five/Nine/Fourteen Eyes countries.
It’s amazing how many internet providers still won’t enable IPv6, even though it is hugely beneficial to their own networks (more efficient routing = less router overhead = more bandwidth and less power usage = SAVE MONEY).
IPv6 was pernanently turned on for the Internet in 2011. That’s THIRTEEN YEARS AGO.
All consumer and enterprise equipment made in the last 10+ years natively support IPv6. There is no excuse anymore. You can enable dual stack and setup / get your v6 block and go for it. The v6 routing tables are much simpler than the v4 routing tables, as it only has to point to the prefix network for any address, and prefixes are handed out so the ISP gets a contigious prefix block. The routers sort the rest out.
IPv6 has the 2000::/3 range for internet traffic. That’s 2^125 ip addresses possible. We’re not running out of those even if we have an internet on every planet in the solar system.
IPv6 Prefix Delegation works like DHCP but for IPv6. It’s not indecipherable magic runes.
Router asks for a v6 range -> ISP router gives the range -> Router then either further subdivides into subnets, or uses DHCPv6 to give out v6 addresses. Simple.
But of course, nobody wants to do it the simple way… AT&T and your strange subnetting spec-breaking routers.
Odd that Comcast/Xfinity, the company that somehow manages to have even worse service than AT&T, implements IPv6 near perfectly. They give prefixes when your router asks. Their own gateways give prefixes to routers behind when requested. It works. If the arguably worst internet company can deploy IPv6 this well, any company can.
In addition, every device also has its own link-local ipv6 (fe80::/16) that is not routed, but can be called directly and it normally doesn’t change, as it is based partly on the network card’s MAC address. Need to connect your printer by ip address? Use the link local v6 and stop having to play the DHCP or static IP charade.
Now the ISPs can charge us if we want a public IP, so really this is a win for big ISP… not sure why you guys aren’t appreciating that! /s
ipv6 cgnat is evil
I meant “ISP’s use CGNAT over IPv6” as ISP’s use CGNAT instead of IPv6 to solve IPv4 address limit issues, not as using IPv6 through CGNAT, although some do use IPv6 through CGNAT for backwards compatibility with IPv4 only devices.
oh i get what you mean. i can understand using ipv4 cgnat to solve these issues.
mine thankfully uses it by default but allows advanced users to switch to a normal ip if they want to.
If it makes tracking hard to impossible then its BASED The end to end principle died in 1994, I’m sad too that we can’t all be one happy family, but let it go.
ELI5?
There is IPv4, it’s an internet address that points to a specific computer, or at least it’s supposed to. IPv4 supports up to 4294967296 addresses, which might seem like a lot until you realize how many devices are connected to the internet. Almost the entire IPv4 range is full, and ISPs have resorted to letting 1 IP point to multiple computers also known as NAT. It’s what your router does, and why your laptop and phone all connect to the internet using your routers’ IP address. Carrier Grade NAT takes it one step further and allows hundreds or more home networks to connect from a single IP address.
CGNAT kind of sucks because you can’t run servers behind them because it doesn’t know which of the hundreds of computer traffic has to go to. IPv6 would solve this entire mess, but ISP’s won’t invest in it because they don’t want to spend the money and just delay the inevitable until they have to.
True ELI5: We ran out of signs for house numbers and instead of getting new ones we started giving everyone in a street the same house number
Thank you. So in a way if the carriers upgrade their infrastructure there would be a decrease in privacy because then it’s a one-to-one correspondence between IP address and customer, but then the customer would have the ability to host servers? The one scenario where the industry dragging their heels on upgrading is actually good for the consumer (in some respects) lol
Adding commas to that number: 4,294,967,296 addresses. More humans that IP address seems like a huge miscalculation in the internet infrastructure
Goverments (depending on juristiction) have laws requiering isp’s to keep track of cgnat port combos. So not only is there no privacy from ipv4 cgnat. Now the isp must also spend a lot of money on the nat state tracking database.
If you need that kind of privacy, use a vpn and the tor onion network.Ah of course i was gonna say even with a cgnat they would have some way of identifying the traffic.
I know very little about ipv6, but CGNAT is Carrier Grade Network Address Translation.
NAT (Network Address Translation) is how your home router takes your one public IP address and is able to simultaneously allow your phone, your PlayStation, and your smart fridge use the internet.
CGNAT is basically the same thing expect on a much larger scale and controlled by you ISP.
IP addresses ran out, IPv6 adds more addresses than we may need, ISPs decide to take away the user’s ability to host servers (more or less (more less than more)) rather than upgrading the infrastructure
My take is they had to upgrade the infrastructure for CGNAT, why not just implement IPv6.
I still dont have ipv6, WHY NOT?! What’s my ISP doing?!
Pardon if i dont cry about it
My university is still mostly on IPv4 for our infrastructure. We got in early on the IPv4 address gold rush, so we got a full /16 block. Not quite MIT’s 18.0.0.0/8 block, but enough so there’s little pressure to move. It can be a little embarrassing, feeling like an institution that should be breaking ground is instead trailing behind. At the same time, our IT department is chronically understaffed, so I can understand not doing the switch. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch, there are many ramifications of IPv6 that aren’t immediately obvious.
Oh boi i didn’t know ipv6 was this spicy
