Change the NAT configuration by following these steps. Make sure to adjust settings carefully.
Change the NAT configuration by following these steps. Make sure to adjust settings carefully.
Apparently there is lol. Stop spreading misinformation. Yes, yes, it does - especially if they keep the fact they're too cheap to buy ipv4 addresses secret from their customers. Basically they sell you something, that they can't even provide, an actual fully functional internet connection.
You cease sharing misinformation you don't grasp and assuming it's entirely true. Just because some areas have public IPv4 addresses doesn't mean everyone globally has one. Old companies were once allocated large address blocks and haven't returned them, so even if they did, it wouldn't solve the problem—it would only postpone it slightly. Many regions have run out of IPv4 assignments under the regional registrar in charge. That's an unavoidable reality.
There are no more IPv4 addresses left. As mentioned before, you can't purchase unavailable ones. It's also worth noting that those who bought multiple /19 addresses are hoarding them and reselling at crazy prices. You seem to think gaming issues are the main concern, but CG-NAT is fully working.
I agree completely. It's entirely feasible, my argument was it should be clearly communicated by the ISP to the customer. Are they deliberately making it hard for customers to understand before signing a contract? Personally, I'd label either a poor ISP or a reliable one. Also, they apply this issue in Germany as well—it matches exactly what I mentioned. If you can't guarantee consistent internet access, don't market it as reliable. That seems questionable and likely against the law. I've already raised this, so what about IPv6? Shouldn't they offer it instead? What's the challenge? I understand there are some tunneling methods, but I'm not sure how effective they would be. So I'm wondering if this could be a practical alternative. Overall, if you lack IPv4 addresses, simply concealing it isn't acceptable—especially when better options exist.
Customers struggle to grasp the difference between modems and routers, yet you need them to discuss IPv4 scarcity and CG-NAT. It’s not essential. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. It’s just standard internet access, just a bit behind another NAT setup. They can’t forward ports or use UPnP fully. Still, the connection works fine. Please share any reason why this matters in court. Saying a restriction is illegal is unreasonable. If it truly was illegal, ISPs would have to halt service until IPv6 was fully prepared. (Note: NAT64 to GC-NAT is also necessary due to IPv4 limitations and compatibility.) Not every online content uses IPv6 yet, especially gaming. It’s a practical alternative, though adoption is slow. ISPs aren’t the main barrier. Your claim that CG-NAT prevents full use is incorrect. And adding gaming as a reason makes it even weaker.
There are approximately 7 billion individuals worldwide. IPv4 wasn’t created to accommodate that scale. It’s straightforward, really. Unfortunately, ISPs have only recently started adopting this technology. Previous programs weren’t built for IPv6, and many services continue to depend on IPv4.
I meant to conceal this restriction should be against the law... It’s uncertain what the present situation truly is, but I’m fairly certain it was deemed unacceptable here, or at least must be explicitly stated about what’s not permitted. It’s misleading to claim it’s ideal for gaming while imposing NAT rules and blocking port forwarding. I’m aware of the situation—about 4.3 billion IPv4 addresses exist, yet it still functions, which is remarkable. Still, it’s not a perfect solution for everyone, especially considering the lack of universal access. Many people face limited internet availability, and it’s surprising they didn’t adopt a more effective method to grow address space. The IPv6 standard seems questionable in practice, with ongoing complications and debates among experts about its long-term viability. Despite being marketed as the ultimate fix, it’s often unreliable and may ultimately fail. That’s why I disable it on all my devices, just like millions of others. The internet as we know it isn’t designed this way, and a fresh approach from the ground up would be better. I’m tired of the constant adjustments and the desire to maintain the status quo. Honestly, it’s too complicated and poorly regulated; a completely new system would be preferable. It might become inevitable. Of course, current ISPs would strongly oppose such a change. Well, I suppose that’s my take. I never dismissed it as a real option, but without solid data it hardly matters. How many IPv4 addresses are available in your country? And how many households do you have there? It’s possible there are enough addresses, but only accessible to established providers—so new entrants probably shouldn’t attempt it. At least for gaming with friends. You seem to be aware of how your responses appear. You mentioned you’re hiding a restriction, yet now claim none exists. That’s confusing. Which ISP do you use?
Considering individuals with various devices is important. Besides the IP address on home internet, smart phones, tablets, and cars are all part of it. The original design of the internet was meant for US military use, with no expectation that civilians worldwide would adopt it. They never imagined everyone in a home would own a computer, nor did they foresee tablets or mobile phones. It's unclear what experts you're hearing from. IPv6 provides a vast number of addresses for each person globally, which could become a practical solution eventually. As more ISPs adopt it, pressure will increase on companies to support it. It's a good thing if you have a reliable internet connection, since many people don't. Some complain about carrier-grade NAT, but what if you were in a situation where you only got 3 Mbps DSL, satellite, or nothing at all? I'd be okay with carrier-grade NAT if it replaced the 1 TB data limit I have.
GC-NAT is essentially a standard NAT setup. You can still play games without issues until you encounter something that depends on insecure UPnP or needs a server. This isn’t misleading. “Gaming routers” would be misleading if taken literally—I can’t keep arguing with anyone who says that. That person isn’t an expert, and being honest, they’re not very smart. Sorry, but this is the most respectful way I can say it. Your lack of real networking knowledge is clear. You’re shifting blame to ISPs, but the real issue lies with manufacturers who ignore updates. Reconsider your comments; IPv4’s address space is the main constraint. Don’t call yourself a CG-NAT network engineer for an ISP. Your understanding of basic networking is limited. The more you argue, the deeper you get into trouble. You’re completely wrong about everything I’ve said. I have no idea where you’re getting this information from.
They're emphasizing the incorrect focus. Calix, Adtran, Ciena and major telecom companies are key for access solutions for most ISPs. You're asking about the number of products launched in 2019 that lack software support for IPv6, marked as beta or still developing. ISPs don't build the hardware and software themselves; we're relying on manufacturers to update their systems so IPv6 can be adopted. This shift is underway globally and is causing significant financial losses since older equipment must be replaced simply because it wasn't included in earlier hardware releases.