How to change NAT type ? Done few things but still.

[TukangKopi]

Recently i play GTA V again and my game said that my NAT was strict, i have tried many time before like:

Port Forward

DMZ

Enable UPnP

Allowing Edge Transfersal

Port On Firewall

Port On FolderExplorer

but still the NAT type is strict, anyone got an idea ?

[Donut417]

30 minutes ago, TukangKopi said:

Recently i play GTA V again and my game said that my NAT was strict, i have tried many time before like:

Port Forward

DMZ

Enable UPnP

Allowing Edge Transfersal

Port On Firewall

Port On FolderExplorer

but still the NAT type is strict, anyone got an idea ?

Check to see if your carrier grade NAT. As in your ISP is making you share an internet routable IP address with other cusotmers. I know in your part of the world it seems to be a standard practice. As we have ran out of Internet routable IPv4 address's and IPv6 is just starting to be deployed. 

[Windows7ge]

Adding to what Donut417 has said if your ISP connection is LTE then CG-NAT is very likely the cause. Based on how many people come here reporting that they can't Port Forward on their LTE routers it's pretty common among that connection type that they're behind CG-NAT.

[mynameisjuan]

7 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

Adding to what Donut417 has said if your ISP connection is LTE then CG-NAT is very likely the cause. Based on how many people come here reporting that they can't Port Forward on their LTE routers it's pretty common among that connection type that they're behind CG-NAT.

With LTE the problem is NAT64-CGN not CGNAT. NAT64-CGN has the capabilities of CGNAT built in.

 

Still poses similar problems though.

[Windows7ge]

3 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

With LTE the problem is NAT64-CGN not CGNAT. NAT64-CGN has the capabilities of CGNAT built in.

 

Still poses similar problems though.

Great. More confusing acronyms. I'll try to remember that one the next time we run into a case with LTE.

 

Unrelated:

I may recruit your assistance at a later date. You can choose not to when I ask at that time.

[TukangKopi]

owh shiet things getting soo serious now, yep most likely this sh*tty ISP causing the problem, because some game got error after i change to current ISP and didnt have any problem in old one, thanks for all the answer, is there anything that i can do to fix the problem beside contacting the ISP.  Already contact the ISP and they will send people to set my router.

[TukangKopi]

6 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Check to see if your carrier grade NAT. As in your ISP is making you share an internet routable IP address with other cusotmers. I know in your part of the world it seems to be a standard practice. As we have ran out of Internet routable IPv4 address's and IPv6 is just starting to be deployed. 

Read some article related to my ISP and PortForward the case was right, run out IPv4 and then they give us private ip not the WAN one.

[Mark Kaine]

Always best to do research before changing ISPs obviously.  I had this too... One of the worst ISPs here and I fell for it lol... "DSL LITE"  (didn't even see this when making the contract)  what it means you will share the same IP adress with 100s of people - I don't even know how this is legal - gaming basically impossible... 

 

Cancelled the contract immediately and am now, after another not so great ISP with one where I a) have the same IP adress for several months (which is great honestly) and b) can change my IP adress at any time (which is even greater heh) 

[Mark Kaine]

10 hours ago, TukangKopi said:

Read some article related to my ISP and PortForward the case was right, run out IPv4 and then they give us private ip not the WAN one.

Maybe you can use ipv6? Did you try that? I know several people who use it exclusively and say they have no issues - cannot confirm because I'm old-school and always turn ipv6 off first thing, lol.

 

Could still be a solution?  But probably your ISP is just trash tbh.  

[mynameisjuan]

28 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

I don't even know how this is legal

Its legal because IPv4 has literally been exhausted and CG-NAT is required. There is no way around it. A few gaming services being affected does not trump getting a customer  outright getting internet in general.

 

30 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

 But probably your ISP is just trash tbh.  

Situations like these does not mean an ISP is trash.

[Mark Kaine]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

There is no way around it.

Apparently there is lol. Stop spreading misinformation. 

 

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Situations like these does not mean an ISP is trash.

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. 

 

 

[Lurick]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

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 stop spreading bullcrap you don't understand and believing it to be 100% fact.

Just because there are pockets of public IPv4 addresses in some areas does NOT mean everyone on the planet has access to a public IPv4 address. Companies of old were given some big blocks of addresses and to this day haven't given them back and even if they did it wouldn't fix the shortage, just delay it by a bit. Several regions of the world have completely exhausted all IPv4 assignments up to the regional registrar responsible for handing out IPv4 addresses. There is NO way around that smartass.

[mynameisjuan]

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Apparently there is lol. Stop spreading misinformation. 

There. is. literally. no. more. IPv4. addresses.

 

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Yes,  yes,  it does - especially if they keep the fact they're too cheap to buy ipv4 addresses secret from their customers. 

Read above point. You cannot buy address that are not available. Add in the fact that people who bought multiple /19s are hording them and selling them now and insane prices

 

You are acting like the few problems you are having with gaming is everything, CG-NAT is 100% functional. 

[Mark Kaine]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

There. is. literally. no. more. IPv4. addresses.

No new ones - I can believe that. 

 

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Read above point. You cannot buy address that are not available. Add in the fact that people who bought multiple /19s are hording them and selling them now and insane prices

That is entirely possible,  my point was it's on the ISP to make this fully clear to the customer and not hide it. 

 

Do they openly make the fact they don't have enough IPv4 addresses obvious to the customer before making a contract?  That's where I personally say either trash ISP or good ISP. 

Also note they pull this shit in Germany too and it's exactly like I said,  if you can't provide fully regular Internet access then don't advertise it as such - I'm not sure if it is but it "should" definitely be illegal. 

 

 

Also,  I asked this already,  what about IPv6 then,  why not sell and use that then? What's the problem?   I know there's some tunneling techniques and whatnot but not sure how this works - hence I'm asking wouldn't that be a really viable alternative?  

 

And again, generally if you don't have IPv4 addresses, that's whatever,  hiding the fact is not ok though - especially when there are alternatives (possibly) 

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

That is entirely possible,  my point was it's on the ISP to make this fully clear to the customer and not hide it. 

Customers cannot understand a modem vs router, yet you want them to explain IPv4 shortage and CG-NAT usage

 

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Do they openly make the fact they don't have enough IPv4 addresses obvious to the customer before making a contract?

They dont have to. In the end it doesnt matter. 

 

3 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

if you can't provide fully regular Internet access then don't advertise it as such

Its regular fucking internet access, just behind a second NAT. Cant port forward? Cant fully utilize UPnP? Boohoo. The internet is still 100% functional. 

 

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

I'm not sure if it is but it "should" definitely be illegal

Please give me any bit of argument why it should be? Good luck with "but my friends couldnt connect to my minecraft server" in court. 

 

To say a LIMITATION is illegal is flat out asinine. If it was made illegal then ISPs that are exhausted would literally need to drop their customers service until IPv6 was 100% ready. (Just so you know NAT64 to a GC-NAT server is also required because IPv4 shortage and compatibility)

 

9 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Also,  I asked this already,  what about IPv6 then,  why not sell and use that then? What's the problem?   I know there's some tunneling techniques and whatnot but not sure how this works - hence I'm asking wouldn't that be a really viable alternative?  

Read sentence above. Not all internet content is IPv6 yet, especially gaming content. It is most definitely a viable alternative but the world is taking its sweet time. ISPs are not the primary ones holding us back.

 

Your whole argument of CG-NAT not allowing for full functionality is factually false. And your argument gets worse when you bring "because gaming" into the mix. CG-NAT customers still have full functionality with all of their services.

[Donut417]

47 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Yes,  yes,  it does - especially if they keep the fact they're too cheap to buy ipv4 addresses secret from their customers. 

There are 7 billion people on the planet. IPv4 was not designed with that many addresses in mind. So it’s simple really. 
 

36 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

IPv6

Sadly ISPs have been only begun deploying this. Older software was not designed to use IPv6. On top of that many services still rely on IPv4. 

[Mark Kaine]

5 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

To say a LIMITATION is illegal is flat out asinine

No, I said hiding this limitation should be illegal... Really not sure what the current state of affairs is but I'm pretty sure it was actually considered to be not allowed here, or at least has to be made absolutely clear what the limitations are.  It's kinda false advertising to say "perfect for gaming"  and then have NAT restrictions and no port forwarding for example. 

 

5 hours ago, Donut417 said:

There are 7 billion people on the planet. IPv4 was not designed with that many addresses in mind. So it’s simple really. 
 

I know this,  4.3 billion ipv4 addresses roughly - yet it still works , a miracle?  No just the reality of not every person on the planet needing or having internet access (idk what babies would need one for, for example lol) 

 

They *did*  make a fatal mistake long term though,  it's also kinda odd they didn't find a better solution to expand these address pools,  the ipv6 standard doesn't really make sense and there are a lot of shenanigans around it, experts even say it's not suitable long term,  exactly because of the compatibility and other issues - yet it gets sold as the one and only solution, when it really isn't,  and by all intends and purposes is likely to fail, there's a reason I turn this off first thing on all my devices (as do millions of other people) 

 

The internet was never meant to be this big in its current form,  we should just make a new one, I'm kinda sick of all the patch work and people trying to clinch to the status quo endlessly. 

 

It's honestly not very good anyways,  much too convoluted and badly regulated,  I wouldn't mind it being replaced with a modern from scratch solution at all to be honest. 

Might be inevitable anyways. (of course current ISPs would hate that idea)

 

6 hours ago, Lurick said:

Several regions of the world have completely exhausted all IPv4 assignments

Umm, alright? I never denied that as a possibility, but this really doesn't mean much without the numbers. 

 

How many IPv4 adresses available [in which country]?

 

And how many households [in that country]?

 

 

Could be there are enough adresses but only available to established ISPs,  hence new ones shouldn't even try for all I know (or at least be honest about the quality of their "services")

 

5 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

CG-NAT customers still have full functionality with all of their services.

Yeap, except playing online games with their friends apparently. 

 

You do know how your whole posting behavior comes off as do you?  

 

First you say limitation doesn't need to be disclosed,  now you say there is no limitation... Seriously? 

 

5 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Customers cannot understand a modem vs router, yet you want them to explain IPv4 shortage and CG-NAT usage

So which ISP do you work for?   @.@

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

 No just the reality of not every person on the planet needing or having internet access (idk what babies would need one for, for example) 

How about people having multiple devices? Besides the IP address used on Home internet. Smart Phones, Tablets, Cars. 

 

Remember the internet was originally desgned for use by the US military. They had no reason to think civilians all over the world was going to use this. They never though that every one in a home might have a computer, or the concept of tablets and mobile phones. 

6 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

he ipv6 standard doesn't really make sense and there are a lot if shenanigans around it, experts even say it's not suitable long term,

Not sure what experts your listening to. IPv6 gives  many address to each person on the planet pretty much. It will be a good solution some day. When ISP's get their heads out of their asses. My ISP for instace has claimed that 70% of the traffic on their network is IPv6, as they dual stack addresses. More and more ISP's are moving to IPv6. It just going to be a slow process. As more and more support it, more and more pressure will be put on companies to support it. 

 

10 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Yeap, except playing online games with their friends apparently

Hey be lucky if you have a decent internet connection. Because many people DONT. Bitching and moaning about Carrier Grade NAT, but what if you were in a sistuation where you could get only 3 Mbps DSL, Satilite or NOTHING. Id be fine with Carrier Grade NAT if it replaced the 1 TB data cap I have. 

[mynameisjuan]

34 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

 It's kinda false advertising to say "perfect for gaming"  and then have NAT restrictions and no port forwarding for example. 

GC-NAT is just NAT. You can still game just fine until you run into a game that utilizes un-secure UPnP or you want to host a server. Its not false advertising. "Gaming routers" should be illegal advertising by that logic

 

36 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

They *did*  make a fatal mistake long term though,  it's also kinda odd they didn't find a better solution to expand these address pools,  the ipv6 standard doesn't really make sense and there are a lot of shenanigans around it, experts even say it's not suitable long term,

I cannot continue to argue with anyone that says that. That person is no expert and in honesty a moron. Im sorry but that is the most polite way I can put it. 

 

38 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

The internet was never meant to be this big in its current form,  we should just make a new one, I'm kinda sick of all the patch work and people trying to clinch to the status quo endlessly. 

 

It's honestly not very good anyways,  much too convoluted and badly regulated,  I wouldn't mind it being replaced with a modern from scratch solution at all to be honest. 

Might be inevitable anyways. (of course current ISPs would hate that idea)

Your lack of knowledge of actual networking shows. You are blaming the ISPs but its the manufactures that are causing all the problems, ignorant devs that refuse to update their software.

 

40 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

First you say limitation doesn't need to be disclosed,  now you say there is no limitation... Seriously? 

Re-read my comment, IPv4 address space is the limitation. Not fucking CG-NAT

 

40 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

So which ISP do you work for?

Network engineer for an ISP. It has no bearing where I work to understand how basic networking is utilized.

 

The more you comment, the more you are digging yourself into a hole. You are wrong on every statement. I have no clue where you are possibly getting your information wrong."IPv6 is not suitable long term"....it was #$@#$@ designed around not having to be redesigned. The people that argue against IPv6 are the people who cannot understand it or the people who literally avoid it because typing it is too hard. Thats not a joke. 

 

Please stop with this false information. Your view that the internet should be rebuilt with a new IPv* because IPv6 is too difficult and CG-NAT means I cannot host a game server is mind bogglingly....ugh...

[mynameisjuan]

40 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

When ISP's get their heads out of their asses.

Again you are focusing on the wrong target. Calix, Adtran, Ciena and huge major players in the telecommunications space. They are the primary go to for access platform for a huge percentage of ISPs. 

 

You want me to show you how many products released this year , 2019, that do not have software support for IPv6 as its "beta" and "In the works"? ISPs dont create the hardware and software for networking gear, we are waiting on manufactures to move their asses so then we can finally push IPv6.

 

This is happening across the board and is resulting in millions of dollars lost because existing hardware has to be replaced with the equipment just because it wasnt added in hardware years ago. 

[Donut417]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

Again you are focusing on the wrong target. Calix, Adtran, Ciena and huge major players in the telecommunications space. They are the primary go to for access platform for a huge percentage of ISPs. 

 

You want me to show you how many products released this year , 2019, that do not have software support for IPv6 as its "beta" and "In the works"? ISPs dont create the hardware and software for networking gear, we are waiting on manufactures to move their asses so then we can finally push IPv6

Thats kinda fucked up when you think about it. Because consumer hardware has supported IPv6 for a long time. Hell my SB6141 is old as fuck, bought it before Motorola died. And it supports IPv6. Also Windows has supported IPv6 since Windows 2000. But the fact is hardware does exist. Otherwise Comcast wouldnt have deployed IPv6. They have had IPv6 for a long while and 70% of the traffic on their network is suppose to be IPv6 traffic. 

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

Thats kinda fucked up when you think about it

It is. A huge portion of our network has IPv6 up until the access platform but are stuck until Calix finally updates their software. The other portion of our network that utilized Cisco/Juniper is all dual stack.

 

Some of our chassis are going to need complete swaps. A chassis that cost $30,000 for the housing alone, $20,000 per blade and $50,000 for licencing per year for each blade. These are 12 blade chassis for NGPON. Just because the current hardware doesnt support it....hardware we bought in 2016...

 

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

They have had IPv6 for a long while and 70% of the traffic on their network is suppose to be IPv6 traffic. 

The data is just a terrible interpretation. Yes, 70% of traffic in Comcast, 52-4% globally is all IPv6. The problem is these numbers are based off of bandwidth. This all comes from two major (more upcoming) sources. Google and Netflix. 

 

Typical web traffic just gets shadowed when you look at these reports. When you spread it out to destination addresses, IPv6 essentially falls off the chart. IPv4 still is needed for a huge portion of traffic.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

GC-NAT is just NAT. You can still game just fine until you run into a game that utilizes un-secure UPnP or you want to host a server. Its not false advertising. "Gaming routers" should be illegal advertising by that logic

 

I cannot continue to argue with anyone that says that. That person is no expert and in honesty a moron. Im sorry but that is the most polite way I can put it. 

 

Your lack of knowledge of actual networking shows. You are blaming the ISPs but its the manufactures that are causing all the problems, ignorant devs that refuse to update their software.

 

Re-read my comment, IPv4 address space is the limitation. Not fucking CG-NAT

 

Network engineer for an ISP. It has no bearing where I work to understand how basic networking is utilized.

 

The more you comment, the more you are digging yourself into a hole. You are wrong on every statement. I have no clue where you are possibly getting your information wrong."IPv6 is not suitable long term"....it was #$@#$@ designed around not having to be redesigned. The people that argue against IPv6 are the people who cannot understand it or the people who literally avoid it because typing it is too hard. Thats not a joke. 

 

Please stop with this false information. Your view that the internet should be rebuilt with a new IPv* because IPv6 is too difficult and CG-NAT means I cannot host a game server is mind bogglingly....ugh...

Your whole attitude and name calling is exactly that of what I call a trash ISP and I'm not believing a single word you say you are way too partial and involved on the matter and your knowledge isn't that great as you think either.  Ipv6 has issues and will continue to have issues.

 

I had a Ipv6 only connection it's literally trash.  

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

I had a Ipv6 only connection it's literally trash.  

Thats the issue. IPv6 is still in the planning and upgrade phase. Many sites on the interwebs are still not IPv6 capable. Which is why US ISP's are dual stacking, where you get IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. Also what your not understanding is its not as simple as flip a fucking swtich and the whole internet is IPv6. Besides ISP's having to support it, data centers where shit is hosted also have to support it. Customer equpment has to support it. 

 

There is a whole lot that has to happen before IPv6 takes over. It will probably take decades to make it happens. Remember that in most parts of the world ISP's are a PRIVATE business. Meaning they upgrade on their schedual. Same goes for any internet based business or hosting service. Its up to them when to upgrade. Sadly it took the running out of IPv4 addresses before companies really started to give a shit. But thats how it goes. CGNAT has solved issues for many companies. It was probably simplier to implement then trying to get IPv6 to work at the time (though @mynameisjuan can comment if that is the case, as he stated there has been issues getting IPv6 equpment for ISP's). But until ISP's start running out of addresses to give their customers and CGNAT stops being an option for some reason, they have no reason to change quickly. 

 

Sorry to tell you this, but the Internet does work fine under carrier grade NAT. I know this because I surf the internet on my T Mobile phone and it works fine. Most wireless providers in the US are under CGNAT. 

[mynameisjuan]

16 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Your whole attitude and name calling is exactly that of what I call a trash ISP

The attitude is when people try to spread misinformation and who very obviously know little about networking.

 

16 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

I'm not believing a single word you say you are way too partial and involved on the matter and your knowledge isn't that great as you think either.

You might as well say "you're a meany poopyhead dumb dumb" with the maturity of that comment. I didnt know I knew less as an ISP engineer than a consumer that says IPv6 is a failure and we need a new internet.

 

16 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Ipv6 has issues and will continue to have issues

Strange seeing how widely used it is, I mean look at all the internet issues you have with your cellphone, you know an IPv6 only network with NAT64