On 11/06/2022 23:10, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> On 10/06/2022 11:51, SH wrote:
>> On 10/06/2022 11:00, Marco Moock wrote:
>>> Am Mittwoch, 08. Juni 2022, um 22:45:30 Uhr schrieb SH:
>>>
>>>> On a IPv4 network, devices use the configured IP address of the DNS.
>>>> In my case I have a pi Hole so all DNS queries all go to teh Pi Hole.
>>>>
>>>> When running on IPv6, mobile phones over Wifi seemed able to get
>>>> their DNS results from a DNS OUTSIDE my LAn despite there being a DNS
>>>> on teh LAN itself.
>>>>
>>>> This was despite the Pi Hole also set up for DNS over IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> the computers on the LAN used the internal DNS.
>>>>
>>>> I ended up having to disable IPv6 support in the router to ensure teh
>>>> Pi Hole DNS was used by *ALL* devices.
>>>
>>> This is the worst idea.
>>> You need to make sure that your computers get the IPv6 DNS resolver by
>>> DHCPv6 (if your routers runs a DHCPv6) and via the IPv6 Router
>>> Advertisement.
>>>
>>
>> i seem to recall that when setting up Pi hole, I put in a IPv4 address
>> 192.168.0.29 and there was no option to add a IPv6 address EVEN though
>> there was a toggle option for enable IPv6 support in Pi Hole.
>
> It does now. As well as being able to choose among half-a-dozen
> pre-defined IPv6 DNS providers such as Cloudflare you can also specify
> two IPv6 addresses for your own choice of upstream IPv6 DNS server.
>
>> In the Vodafone router I have a toggle option for IPv6 support. I can
>> also enter in the IPv4 address of my preferred DNS but there is no box
>> for entering an IPv6 address for my preferred DNS.....
>>
>>
>> Hmmm what next?
>
> Stop using the Vodafone router for DHCP/DNS and use the Pi Hole instead.
>

which i sm doing as i disabled dhcp in the router and enabled the pi
holes own dhcp

with <62a54f82@news.ausics.net> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>> On 6/10/22 11:56 PM, Marco Moock wrote:

*SKIP*
>>> But think about making subnets of 127.0.0.0/8 public routable?
>> There are many facets to the IPv4 Cleanup Project as I understand it.
*SKIP*
> But if a normal website server like wikipedia.org ever resolves to
> 127.2.0.192, or my ISP ever assigns an IP address like that to my home
> internet connection, _that_ would be very bad state of affairs. The
> question is therefore whether website operators and ISPs can be
> trusted not to use the new global addresses inappropriately?

I have an idea for sticker: "Go IPv6 Now! Save 127.0.0.0/8 Tomorrow!"

*CUT*

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

Am Sonntag, 12. Juni 2022, um 18:25:06 Uhr schrieb SH:

> which i sm doing as i disabled dhcp in the router and enabled the pi
> holes own dhcp

You need to know that there is DHCPv4 AND DHCPv6. Often DHCPv4 is being
called just DHCP.
Also the IPv6 Router Advertisement sent by the router (independent of
DHCPv6) can contain DNS resolvers.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6106

On 2022-06-12, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> The transition is already complete in most of Asia. They can't get IPv4
> addresses because there haven't been any available for years, so they use
> IPv6. The transition is only going slowly in the US where address space
> is plentiful. Most of the rest of the world is not that way, and if you
> want to talk to the rest of the would you likely would want IPv6.

I rarely connect to anything outside the U.S. so don't really care
about that. The rest of the world is welcome to go its own way.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2022-06-12, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> CG-NAT is no way around it, you can't run any servers, you can't use
> SIP at all. CG-NAT and DS-Lite is just really nasty.

CG-NAT is just fine for the typical end user "surfing thuh web".

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 Jun 2022 11:50:31 +1000
> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>
>> Well I just wasted another hour of my life trying to enable it for
>> my home internet connection (mobile broadband). It turns out that
>> yes, I am now using a modem that supports IPv6 and IPv4/IPv6 over
>> PPP. But whenever I enable it, the modem never connects. I guessed
>> that this means my ISP/telco doesn't support it. But no, although
>> as usual they're to polite to have an official page about it they
>> announced IPv4/v6 for mobile in 2016*. But it doesn't work, and
>> there's only so far to dig with that because there aren't many
>> cofiguration changes involved. Plus the error condition is "hmm,
>> it's been a couple of minutes and it's _still_ 'connecting', guess
>> that doesn't work either" (an all too familiar error condition, I
>> might add).
>
> So it should have worked just by ticking a box or something but you never
> actually managed to make it work.

Pretty much. I'm using OpenWRT so the instructions are to tick a
box and edit the chat script that initialises the modem, but I'm
not using the web interface so I edited the config file and the
chat script manually. The chat script edit just replaces "IP" with
"IPV4V6" on one line, but doing that (or I tried "IPV6" as well)
prevents the phone network from letting it connect. I followed
their instructions to check that it supports PDPv6 and PDPv4v6
(though their wiki page seems to be the only bit of the internet
that uses those terms), and it does, so I have to figure it's a
problem with my ISP/telco. My ISP/telco is the company that
actually sold the modem that I'm using though.

https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wan/wwan/3gdongle#obtaining_ipv6_address

Years ago I edited my firewall rules on the router to allow IPv6,
but the modem I was using then didn't support it anyway. Even if
I stuffed that up the modem itself should still connect though.

Average users wouldn't have to worry about firewall settings on
their router. Nor manually editing chat scripts. They'd just tick
a box, or in fact many mobile devices are apparantly pre-set to
seek out IPv6 automatically anyway, so it just happens once the
telco enables it at their end.

>> On the other hand I know most households here in Australia with
>> wired internet are now using modems/routers with IPv6 enabled,
>> because that's the default for most/all the new hardware they got
>> when the 'National Broadband Network' rolled out in Australia. So
>> they didn't need to take any explicit steps.
>
> Yes , that would have been my guess for all "sufficiently technologically
> advanced" countries. I don't know if my router has IPv6 enabled and I'm
> not inclined to find out because I resent the fact that its interface
> requires a browser with javascript. But my guess is that IPv6 is enabled.

You can check easily whether your computer can access IPv6.
This command on Linux or whatever you have with recent-ish wget
installed:
wget -6 --spider https://www.wikipedia.org/
Should state that the "Remote file exists" along with a lot of other
stuff. If not, then if it works without the "-6" option that means
something is stopping IPv6 connections.

The "-6" option also works with ping on Linux.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>
> Pretty much. I'm using OpenWRT so the instructions are to tick a
> box and edit the chat script that initialises the modem, but I'm
> not using the web interface so I edited the config file and the
> chat script manually. The chat script edit just replaces "IP" with
> "IPV4V6" on one line, but doing that (or I tried "IPV6" as well)
> prevents the phone network from letting it connect. I followed
> their instructions to check that it supports PDPv6 and PDPv4v6
> (though their wiki page seems to be the only bit of the internet
> that uses those terms), and it does, so I have to figure it's a
> problem with my ISP/telco. My ISP/telco is the company that
> actually sold the modem that I'm using though.
>
> https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wan/wwan/3gdongle#obtaining_ipv6_address

I just tried the USB modem on a PC with Modem Manager, adding
"ip-type=ipv4v6" to the usual "--simple-connect=" string that I use
with the mmcli command to start the modem.

It worked! Connected, and I could use "wget -6"! However it was in
3G mode instead of 4G mode. OK, add "--set-preferred-mode=4G":

error: couldn't connect the modem:
'GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.ModemManager1.Error.MobileEquipment.NoNetwork: No network service'

So I tried to connect again in 3G mode, but got the same error.
Restarted Modem manager. Same errors. Removed "ip-type=ipv4v6", it
connects (4G), but I can't "wget -6" anymore of course.

So I pulled out the modem, rebooted the PC, plugged in the modem,
and... again I got "No network service" when trying either 3G or
4G with "ip-type=ipv4v6".

So it seems to be that sometimes I can connect with IPv6, but most
times it fails to connect at all when requesting that. It would
be possible to script it to automatically fall back on trying to
make an IPv4-only connection when IPv4/v6 fails, but not worth the
effort for me, and it would probably be complicated on OpenWRT. I
think that's probably what smartphones etc. do though, hence the
unreliability of this network's IPv6 support isn't obvious to
normal users.

It also makes the IPv6 support pretty pointless on this network
because only servers with IPv4 can be accessed reliably. Not that
I ever encounter IPv6-only servers that I want to connect to
anyway.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 2022-06-12, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> CG-NAT is no way around it, you can't run any servers, you can't use
> SIP at all. CG-NAT and DS-Lite is just really nasty.

I've run SIP through NAT many times. I see no reason why CG-NAT would
make any difference.

On 6/12/22 5:10 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> CG-NAT is just fine for the typical end user "surfing thuh web".

This is the difference between "being on the Internet" and "access to
the Internet".

Being on the Internet requires inbound IP connectivity. The easiest way
to achieve this is with globally routed IP addresses on the system
providing the service. A quite common method is via port forwarding
(DNAT) to a private non-globally routed IP address on the system
providing the service. CG-NAT is capable of doing port forwarding.
It's just that it's rather difficult to get ISPs to support such a
configuration.

Access to the Internet can be accomplished in many different ways and is
often a LOT simpler to do There are even ways to access the Internet
from a client device that doesn't even have an IP address (neither v4
nor v6) on the client accessing the Internet.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/11/22 9:55 AM, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On what grounds do they discourage it ?

There are many that think that the bulk of email coming from IPv6
clients is disproportionately spam and as such discourage providing IPv6
connectivity as a way to thwart this spam.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Am Sonntag, 12. Juni 2022, um 23:10:03 Uhr schrieb Roger Blake:

> CG-NAT is just fine for the typical end user "surfing thuh web".

But this is very annoying, people can't rund their own server and have
their freedom. They must store files they want to remotely access on
foreign servers.

On 13 Jun 2022 10:28:10 +1000
not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes , that would have been my guess for all "sufficiently technologically
> > advanced" countries. I don't know if my router has IPv6 enabled and I'm
> > not inclined to find out because I resent the fact that its interface
> > requires a browser with javascript. But my guess is that IPv6 is enabled.
>
> You can check easily whether your computer can access IPv6.
> This command on Linux or whatever you have with recent-ish wget
> installed:
> wget -6 --spider https://www.wikipedia.org/
> Should state that the "Remote file exists" along with a lot of other
> stuff. If not, then if it works without the "-6" option that means
> something is stopping IPv6 connections.
>
> The "-6" option also works with ping on Linux.

Ahhh , great , thanks for that.

prompt> wget --spider www.google.com
Spider mode enabled. Check if remote file exists.
--2022-06-13 06:34:05-- http://www.google.com/
Resolving www.google.com... 172.217.169.36, 2a00:1450:4009:820::2004
Connecting to www.google.com|172.217.169.36|:80... connected.
[...]

prompt> wget -6 --spider www.google.com
Spider mode enabled. Check if remote file exists.
--2022-06-13 06:34:17-- http://www.google.com/
Resolving www.google.com... 2a00:1450:4009:80a::2004
Connecting to www.google.com|2a00:1450:4009:80a::2004|:80... failed: Network is unreachable.

prompt> wget --spider www.wikipedia.org
Spider mode enabled. Check if remote file exists.
--2022-06-13 06:34:46-- http://www.wikipedia.org/
Resolving www.wikipedia.org... 91.198.174.192, 2620:0:862:ed1a::1
Connecting to www.wikipedia.org|91.198.174.192|:80... connected.
[...]

prompt> wget -6 --spider https://www.wikipedia.org
Spider mode enabled. Check if remote file exists.
--2022-06-13 06:35:29-- https://www.wikipedia.org/
Resolving www.wikipedia.org... 2620:0:862:ed1a::1
Connecting to www.wikipedia.org|2620:0:862:ed1a::1|:443... failed: Network is unreachable.

It turns out that IPv6 is not enabled on my router. This makes me wonder
whether the occasional failure to access a website has been because the
server was IPv6 only. Obviously this is only one of many possibilities.

prompt> w3m http://172.217.169.36
[ Goes to Google home page. ]
prompt> w3m http://2a00:1450:4009:80a::2004
w3m: Can't load http://2a00:1450:4009:80a::2004.

The w3m message has nothing to suggest that it's an IPv6 configuration
issue on my router (which likely it is) and I suspect that the application
can't even tell the reason it can't connect. So I guess I will have to grit
my teeth and go through my router's bloatware javascript interface and see
how I can enable IPv6.

--
We've heard that other companies have people allocate a
percentage of their time to self-directed projects. At Valve,
that percentage is 100.
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1074301/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 2022-06-12, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
>> CG-NAT is no way around it, you can't run any servers, you can't use
>> SIP at all. CG-NAT and DS-Lite is just really nasty.
>
> I've run SIP through NAT many times. I see no reason why CG-NAT would
> make any difference.

Mostly it's the dual-NAT nature of CGNAT (public IP -> Carrier 100.64/10
- -> your RFC1918), coupled with things like the carrier not able (or
willing) to force the forward to your router, etc.

It's certainly fine for residential "access the internet" type
connections, but it seems the trend is that people (somewhat) want to be
"on the internet" -- maybe not running "very public" websites or
whatever; but still be able to "get home" while they're out for some
reason or other.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=RZMo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 6/13/22 4:34 AM, Marco Moock wrote:
> But this is very annoying, people can't rund their own server and have
> their freedom. They must store files they want to remotely access on
> foreign servers.
These are the type of people that need to "be on the Internet". There
are plenty of options for such people. This is traditionally where
"business Internet connections" from ISPs. This is also where a VPS and
/ or VPN come into play.

People that want to "be on the Internet" need to pay a little bit more
per month. Or said another way, people that are satisfied with "access
to the Internet" can save a little bit of money via CG-NAT.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/13/22 6:33 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> Mostly it's the dual-NAT nature of CGNAT (public IP -> Carrier 100.64/10
> -> your RFC1918), coupled with things like the carrier not able (or
> willing) to force the forward to your router, etc.

I think that it's mostly a lack of willingness and maybe a lack of
capability (as in the vendor doesn't provide an option to the ISP) that
prevents this public IP -> Carrier 100.64/10 -> RFC1918 forwarding.

> It's certainly fine for residential "access the internet" type
> connections, but it seems the trend is that people (somewhat) want to be
> "on the internet" -- maybe not running "very public" websites or
> whatever; but still be able to "get home" while they're out for some
> reason or other.

There are options that people with "access to the Internet" can use to
get home via things like some VPNs and / or a VPS that's "on the
Internet" with a connection with the home.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Am Montag, 13. Juni 2022, um 12:04:23 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor:

> I think that it's mostly a lack of willingness and maybe a lack of
> capability (as in the vendor doesn't provide an option to the ISP)
> that prevents this public IP -> Carrier 100.64/10 -> RFC1918
> forwarding.

Is is a problem of NAT itself. SIP isn't intended to run behind
NAT/CG-NAT.
> > It's certainly fine for residential "access the internet" type
> > connections, but it seems the trend is that people (somewhat) want
> > to be "on the internet" -- maybe not running "very public" websites
> > or whatever; but still be able to "get home" while they're out for
> > some reason or other.
>
> There are options that people with "access to the Internet" can use
> to get home via things like some VPNs and / or a VPS that's "on the
> Internet" with a connection with the home.

I know, but this is really, really annoying, so I like to avoid that
whenever possible.

On 6/13/22 12:48 PM, Marco Moock wrote:
> Is is a problem of NAT itself. SIP isn't intended to run behind
> NAT/CG-NAT.

I think we're talking horses and oranges.

I was stating that -- I think -- CGNAT /could/ support port forwarding
if people wanted it to.

You seem to be talking about SIP specifically.

I maintain that I have used SIP through NAT in the (distant) past.

Sufficiently advanced NAT (helper programs) can modify data in packet
payload in addition to packet headers.

> I know, but this is really, really annoying, so I like to avoid that
> whenever possible.

So what would your reaction be if the annoyance was reduced such that
it's effectively an optional add-on to your Internet connection from
your ISP?

E.g. the ISP uses RFC 7793 IPs for everything but will optionally route
a small block of IPs to your RFC 7793 WAN IP. Hypothetically your
current monthly Internet service plus $1 per globally routed IP that is
routed to your RFC 7793 WAN IP. Then you route said globally routed
IP(s) to your internal system(s).

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-06-11, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
>> Ok, can you calculate 2³²?
>> This is the maximum amount of possible IPv4 addresses. Even this isn't
>> enough and many areas of that space can't be used for global
>> addressing. This is the reason for IPv6 and there is no way around it.
>
> There are ways around it, such as carrier-grade NAT.

Good luck running any kind of server on a host behind CGNAT. There's
reverse SSH tunneling and other sorts of network voodoo that might help, but
even that ultimately relies on having a routable address somewhere.

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On 6/13/22 3:20 PM, scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us wrote:
> that ultimately relies on having a routable address somewhere.

Yes. There is no way around that.

But the germane point is "somewhere" and the fact that "somewhere"
doesn't have to be the IP provided by the ISP.

Things get even more interesting when the clients trying to reach the
service are in a private cloud. Then you don't even need an address on
the Global Internet. Things like Tor Hidden Services are an example of
this.

This is also one of the reasons to run a Tor Hidden Service. To expose
something without the need for an IP address on the Global Internet.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 6/13/22 6:33 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> Mostly it's the dual-NAT nature of CGNAT (public IP -> Carrier 100.64/10
>> -> your RFC1918), coupled with things like the carrier not able (or
>> willing) to force the forward to your router, etc.
>
> I think that it's mostly a lack of willingness and maybe a lack of
> capability (as in the vendor doesn't provide an option to the ISP) that
> prevents this public IP -> Carrier 100.64/10 -> RFC1918 forwarding.

Which "vendor" are you thinking of here? Cisco/Aruba/Juniper? They
totally can do DNAT over the CGNAT range.

There's honestly nothing special about CGNAT -- it's just a new range
that definitely won't collide with RFC1918, because modern small
carriers can't get their hands on a publicly routed /24 easily (if at
all).

>
>> It's certainly fine for residential "access the internet" type
>> connections, but it seems the trend is that people (somewhat) want to be
>> "on the internet" -- maybe not running "very public" websites or
>> whatever; but still be able to "get home" while they're out for some
>> reason or other.
>
> There are options that people with "access to the Internet" can use to
> get home via things like some VPNs and / or a VPS that's "on the
> Internet" with a connection with the home.

Of course. Or they could pressure their provider for v6, and be "on the
internet" that way (IME with various WISPs, that's their M.O.)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=fnzU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 6/13/22 12:48 PM, Marco Moock wrote:
>> Is is a problem of NAT itself. SIP isn't intended to run behind
>> NAT/CG-NAT.
>
> I think we're talking horses and oranges.
>
> I was stating that -- I think -- CGNAT /could/ support port forwarding
> if people wanted it to.

It does. But what incentive do I as a carrier have to setup the
necessary DNAT rule(s) for you?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=FTzz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2022, um 09:35:40 Uhr schrieb Dan Purgert:

> It does. But what incentive do I as a carrier have to setup the
> necessary DNAT rule(s) for you?

Nothing. Most customers are satisfied with CG-NAT/DS-Lite and those who
are not use another ISP/pay extra for native IPv4.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Marco Moock wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2022, um 09:35:40 Uhr schrieb Dan Purgert:
>
>> It does. But what incentive do I as a carrier have to setup the
>> necessary DNAT rule(s) for you?
>
> Nothing. Most customers are satisfied with CG-NAT/DS-Lite and those who
> are not use another ISP/pay extra for native IPv4.

Exactly, but I was asking Grant why he thought otherwise. ;)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=1pmi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 6/14/22 3:35 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> It does. But what incentive do I as a carrier have to setup the
> necessary DNAT rule(s) for you?

I would hope that a ((reasonable) monthly) monetary incentive might work.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/14/22 3:33 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> Which "vendor" are you thinking of here? Cisco/Aruba/Juniper?
> They totally can do DNAT over the CGNAT range.

I was mostly focusing on "lack of willingness" more than "capability".

Your response to my previous email make me think you probably fall into
the "lack of willingness" group.

> There's honestly nothing special about CGNAT -- it's just a new
> range that definitely won't collide with RFC1918, because modern
> small carriers can't get their hands on a publicly routed /24 easily
> (if at all).

Agreed.

> Of course. Or they could pressure their provider for v6, and be
> "on the internet" that way (IME with various WISPs, that's their M.O.)

Except IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. It's not even really feature
parity. It's definitely not the same set of endpoints.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 6/14/22 3:35 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> It does. But what incentive do I as a carrier have to setup the
>> necessary DNAT rule(s) for you?
>
> I would hope that a ((reasonable) monthly) monetary incentive might work.

I suppose it depends on the carrier, and the setup / future plans.

The ones I've worked with are pretty universally "no", outside of the
reserved / business accounts (as would I be, if I lived somewhere where
I could actually compete as a carrier). Long story short is that they
have NAT pools from their CGN-space to the public internet, in order to
avoid issues where popular websites/services will reject the customer
for "too many connections". That being said, they do offer ipv6
options.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=SZMA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860