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

[Mark Kaine]

4 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

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.

It's exactly the same here...... 

 

My issue with that ipv6 only connection was that they didn't tell me and it literally didn't work as it should...! Lag,  constant disconnects etc. The ISP was also really shady honestly.  Gangsters basically.

 

And the fact I didn't like ipv6 even before that didn't help things either of course lol.

 

I've never felt so ripped off tbh... Luckily I was only 2 months with them, but it wasn't pretty... 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

is its not as simple as flip a fucking swtich

Where did I hear this before!   

 

Seriously, I think that's the only point we don't agree,  with planning and people working together of course it is,  and it will happen, eventually.  Until then chaos and every ISP is their own little Kingdom and customers suffer. 

 

 

No, it is indeed as easy as flipping a switch IF there was the will to do this,  of course it doesn't look like it is. 

 

 

There's a privacy issue with ipv6 also (which for some reason doesn't seem to matter in this discussion) and it's open to abuse,  basically it's similar to ipv4 just with *more* addresses and some added issues needlessly.  It's not a good solution simply. 

 

 

Really, long term solution is to rebuild the Internet,  I think we know that for a long time now,  of course the interest of ISPs is to keep their status quo and all their little side business with selling access points and ip addresses etc.  This needed to be regulated completely different, imo! 

 

And what about people like the OP?  Just tough luck? 

 

Well I think there's probably a solution - I tried to ask - I could totally see him getting an ipv4 address with another provider for example,  or maybe he just has to call his ISP,  I've read about such cases, there might just be a solution for them.

[mynameisjuan]

8 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Lag,  constant disconnects etc. The ISP was also really shady honestly.  Gangsters basically.

IPv6 actually was designed for faster processing. Lag has no relation to IP. You probably had a shitty cable/DSL connection.

 

8 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

There's a privacy issue with ipv6 also (which for some reason doesn't seem to matter in this discussion) and it's open to abuse,  basically it's similar to ipv4 just with *more* addresses and some added issues needlessly.  It's not a good solution simply. 

Developed, what, 6 years ago at this point was a mechanism to randomize IPv6 EUI-64 address to prevent tracking. This has since be incorporated into EVERY operating system. Privacy issue has been fixed. Pull up a command prompt and notice your "temporary address". Its flushed every few hours.

 

Please give one concrete evidence of added issues

[Donut417]

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

And what about people like the OP?  Just tough luck? 

 

Yeah. What about the poor fuck that cant even get internet? Or the guy who only gets 3 Mbps DSL or Satilite? Are they fucked? YES. Its how it is. We ran out of addresses. No more can be created, those that are allocated are owned by the companies who they are allocated to. SO.............. 

 

7 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

long term solution is to rebuild the Internet,

Who's paying for it? The ISP's? NO. The government???? Technically if the government pays for it, we are paying for it. Thats how taxes work. You act like the government can just snap its fingers and force a company to do things. Yeah thats not how it works in the REAL WORLD. I clearly remember the FBI asking to get an iPhone unlocked and Apple pretty much told them to piss off. Even after court orders. 

[mynameisjuan]

5 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Who's paying for it? The ISP's? NO. The government???? Technically if the government pays for it, we are paying for it. Thats how taxes work. You act like the government can just snap its fingers and force a company to do things. Yeah thats not how it works in the REAL WORLD.

Even cost aside, the amount of years put into the 8700 RFCs and IEEE 802s that provide a fully, 100% effective and operational networking blueprint just to be scrapped and start from scratch, no one in their right mind would do that.

 

IPv6 fixed so many problem IPv4 had besides limited space and has been over engineered to allow new protocols to just work with it instead of on top of it. There is nothing wrong with IPv6 and people reading this far into this side-tracked thread hopefully get that point. 

[Mark Kaine]

36 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

You act like the government can just snap its fingers and force a company to do things

That's kinda how it works yeah. 

 

For example until recently ISPs didn't have to give out the login credentials to their customers so they couldn't easily use their own  hardware and were forced to use the ISPs shitty hardware instead. 

 

Well,  now we have a law for that and ISPs *have* to give out the log ins to their customers and they're also not allowed to block customers hardware (aka modems) . 

 

So yes,  that's kind of how it works when governments do their job. 

 

Big corporations aren't your or anyone's friend you should never forget that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alex Atkin UK]

I fail to see how starting from scratch would achieve anything, you'd literally just end up with a whole new load of bugs and half-assed implementations because it takes YEARS of real-world usage to iron out all the issues.

 

Networking has been refined over decades, if there was a better way to do it then there is no reason why this can't be implemented on the current infrastructure - which is exactly what IPv6 is.

 

Would your fantastical new Internet require all new fibre to be laid too?

[Mark Kaine]

15 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Would your fantastical new Internet require all new fibre to be laid too?

Well Google tried that iirc.  How did that go? 

 

And idk how you'd get that absurd idea from what I said but ok. 

 

 

I also still don't believe there's no solution for the OP,  maybe not with their current ISP.  A whole country without ipv4 adressses?   I believe it when I see it... 

 

And I'd love to hear back from OP if they somehow were able to solve this issue. 

[TukangKopi]

[redacted]

[TukangKopi]

10 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Well Google tried that iirc.  How did that go? 

 

And idk how you'd get that absurd idea from what I said but ok. 

 

 

I also still don't believe there's no solution for the OP,  maybe not with their current ISP.  A whole country without ipv4 adressses?   I believe it when I see it... 

 

And I'd love to hear back from OP if they somehow were able to solve this issue. 

already contacted my ISP and they will sending out technician for sort the port forwarding at the main IP, fingger cross.

[TukangKopi]

Technicians already came home, and there is bad and good news, the good news sometimes i can connect (idk why sometimes all got disconnected, atleast i can connect for random time span), the bad news i didnt get forwarding on public ip server or any public ip for my router and technician didn't do sh*t.

[jagdtigger]

Well that sucks. I dont know the current pricing but as a last option you could rent a VPS and run a openvpn server there. Its more complicated from a routing standpoint but its does not require port forwarding.

[Mark Kaine]

5 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Well that sucks. I dont know the current pricing but as a last option you could rent a VPS and run a openvpn server there. Its more complicated from a routing standpoint but its does not require port forwarding.

Hmm, interesting.  Or alternatively try figuring out which ISPs give you a proper ipv4 address. 

 

9 hours ago, TukangKopi said:

technician didn't do sh*t.

Well, yeah, not surprised about that!    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[mynameisjuan]

6 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

alternatively try figuring out which ISPs give you a proper ipv4 address. 

Again it's a proper address. Please stop the misinformation.

 

6 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Well, yeah, not surprised about that!    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What possibly would a technician int he field be able to do for  core infrastructure  work?

[jagdtigger]

4 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Again it's a proper address. Please stop the misinformation.

I dont think we should consider CGNAT as proper addressing.... (the OP's problem just a good demonstration why)

[Lurick]

8 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

I dont think we should consider CGNAT as proper addressing.... (the OP's problem just a good demonstration why)

So because 99.something percent of all users don't have the issue the entire industry should cater to a small fraction of a percent of people and give them public IPv4 addresses so they can game?

CGNAT is proper addressing, it might not be great for some people but for the rest of the population it works just fine.

[mynameisjuan]

10 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

I dont think we should consider CGNAT as proper addressing.... (the OP's problem just a good demonstration why)

It's proper address when there is an exhaustion. What is everyone's problem here. The problem is with NAT in general, not specifically CGNAT

 

[jagdtigger]

18 minutes ago, Lurick said:

So because 99.something percent of all users don't have the issue the entire industry should cater to a small fraction of a percent of people and give them public IPv4 addresses so they can game?

You know 100% that they dont have problems with it? Or you just assume because normies dont complain? (Which they usually dont, they just put up with it.)  And just for reference CGNAT can cause issues for normies. Like when we upgraded to 100/10, and we got something like 2/0,2. What was the first move of the tech? Lets pull out my router(fvs336g at the time) because it most be the culprit, as soon as he spotted the router he just dropped the idea.  Same thing when we gone up to 150/15. They automatically reapplied CGNAT and caused the same. Another tech come, again pull out router. As usual he dropped the idea as soon as he seen the custom built pfsense box(cpu: 2200G, 2 intel NIC).......

 

So in short, no CGNAT is not a proper addressing for for ISP's(we pay for internet and not intranet), and it is definitely not a proper fix for shortages. IPv6 is supported by netorking gear  for a pretty long time now so there is no excuse for ignoring it.

 

/EDIT

Oh and did i mention services can temporarliy, or permanently kick you out for "logging in to many times form the same ip"?

Edited January 5, 2020 by jagdtigger

[mynameisjuan]

20 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

You know 100% that they dont have problems with it? Or you just assume because normies dont complain?

If it was a problem than everyone would be having a problem with NAT in general. CGNAT is just NAT with deeper configuration, once you NAT you will experience particular issues, it doesn't matter how many times it's NAT'd.

 

20 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

And just for reference CGNAT can cause issues for normies. Like when we upgraded to 100/10, and we got something like 2/0,2. What was the first move of the tech?

Has nothing to do with CGNAT, probably was a routing/improper design. Not at all related

 

20 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

So in short, no CGNAT is not a proper addressing for for ISP's

It's 100% proper addressing. NAT was created because exhaustion, if you think it's not proper, well you should also think NAT at your router is improper because the original design is per device public IP just like IPv6

 

20 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

we pay for internet and not intranet

You pay for ACCESS to the internet

 

20 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

IPv6 is supported by netorking gear  for a pretty long time now so there is no excuse for ignoring it.

The limitation is customers and manufacturers

[jagdtigger]

10 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Has nothing to do with CGNAT, probably was a routing/improper design. Not at all related

Flip off cgnat->modem reboot->full speed. 100% related.

 

10 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

NAT was created because exhaustion

To be used for local networks, not for ISP's to create huge intranets and cause alll sort of trouble's. Its in no way proper addressing beyond your ISP facing firewall/router.

 

10 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

You pay for ACCESS to the internet

Which is not the same as an intranet. (look up the difference)

 

10 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

The limitation is customers and manufacturers

My first router that supported IPv6 was released in 2012 so nope.

Edited January 5, 2020 by jagdtigger

[mynameisjuan]

11 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Flip off nat->modem reboot->full speed. 100% related.

You mean turn off NAT on the modem and bridge it. If it was actually turning off CGNAT and the modem was properly bridged, youd just need to reboot your router.

 

11 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

To be used for local networks, not for ISP's to create huge intranets and cause alll sort of trouble's. Its in no way proper addressing beyond your ISP facing firewall/router.

No, it was not just designed for local networks. It's proper addressing whether you like it or not. NAT is needed. Period.

 

11 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Which is not the same as an intranet. (look up the difference)

I know the fucking difference and you are using it incorrectly. I'm getting tired of people who have little to no actual networking knowledge trying to tell people who actually do what is correct/incorrect. It's pissing me off because the misinformation.

 

CGNAT is 100 proper with IPv4. You cannot argue the point because you have occasional problems with port forwarding. Exhaustion is real, IPv6 is the answer and CGNAT is for IPv4.

 

Edit: about your last quote. Not manufacturers of consumer routers. Fucking Carrier grade access platforms

[jagdtigger]

10 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

You mean turn off NAT on the modem and bridge it. If it was actually turning off CGNAT and the modem was properly bridged, youd just need to reboot your router.

Nope, when i wrote modem i mean an actual "dumb" cable modem, not a combo unit. Fun fact i didnt had to reboot the router to get the full speed.

 

10 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

No, it was not just designed for local networks.

Yes it was, there is a reason why even the range is called private. It was never meant to be used by IPS's. And honestly it should be made illegal.

 

10 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I know the fucking difference

Then stop pretending that what IPS's do is fine and i should shut my mouth because i have one way acces which according to you qualifies as internet.....

 

CGNAT is not a proper addressing no matter how you want to twist it, period!

Edited January 5, 2020 by jagdtigger

[Lurick]

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Nope, when i wrote modem i mean an actual "dumb" cable modem, not a combo unit. Fun fact i didnt had to reboot the router to get the full speed.

 

Yes it was, there is a reason why even the range is called private. It was never meant to be used by IPS's. And honestly it should be made illegal.

 

Then stop pretending that what IPS's do is fine and i should shut my mouth because i have one way acces which according to you qualifies as internet.....

 

CGNAT is not a proper addressing no matter how you want to twist it, period!

RFC 6598 would like a word with you then

 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598

[jagdtigger]

5 minutes ago, Lurick said:

RFC 6598 would like a word with you then

 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598

This still dont make it any more valid than the private address range. Both unroutable globally so it snot valid for an ISP to hand them out under the name "internet access".

[Lurick]

4 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

This still dont make it any more valid than the private address range. Both unroutable globally so it snot valid for an ISP to hand them out under the name "internet access".

Do you even know what internet access means?

It's literally access to the internet, under no circumstances is it defined how you should access the internet.

If you're on a cellphone network, you're 100% behind CG-NAT, should they hand out IPv4 addresses to every user?

How about just NAT? You aren't handing out "routable" addresses to the clients in your home network so by that argument NAT in itself should be not valid.

[mynameisjuan]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Yes it was, there is a reason why even the range is called private

NAT and private addresse space have literally no direct involvement.

 

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Then stop pretending that what IPS's do is fine and i should shut my mouth because i have one way acces which according to you qualifies as internet.

You are acting like intranet/internet are definite terms. They are perspective based.

 

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

This still dont make it any more valid than the private address range. Both unroutable globally so it snot valid for an ISP to hand them out under the name "internet access".

Allowed to be routed globally (announced in BGP) doesn't not make an address valid.