dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1082
share rss forum feed


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

BT intros carrier NAT, customers fume at broken service

Good read:

»www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/3···-sharing

quote:
However, it appears users are already noticing problems. "It's causing me a real headache, for a start none of my home servers are now accessible via the web, remote access to my PC is also blocked, and XBox Live requires NAT to be open to work correctly so has reduced multiplayer ability," said one user on the BT forums. "If BT has decided to roll out this solution I really hope that it realises the issues it'll cause its customers."
--
If you can't open it, you don't own it.


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:12

1 recommendation

quote:
"... if any of these customers did have any resulting issues, we would be happy to restore their connection to an individual IP address."
It seems like it's a self-inflicted headache for that user.

At least they're working the bugs out now while they can still put users on individual IP addresses. Eventually it'll be 'sorry, there are no more IPv4 addresses are available'

/M

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

2 recommendations

reply to Cabal
But.. but... but.. I thought NAT was super awesome goodness. What's another layer of NAT? *grin* I can't wait for CGN and to hear people "stuck" on IPv4 to feel the pain. It's all IPv4 is fine and NAT is awesome until you're being thrown behind CGN.

quesix

join:2005-12-19
Cary, IL

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to Cabal
Already seeing issues back in states with CGN and IPv6... Windows XP machine on Hughes Net Gen4 (IPv6 unable to install on the xp machine due to unknown issue) getting CGN and transparent "accelerator" proxy server (no proxy in IE settings) that trys to serve up an IPv6 website, of course it fails...

I also believe Cell Phones have been doing CGN for years already, which explains problems with mobile versions of apps. Yet I rarely see IPv6 off cell towers...once in 100 checks. And yes IPv6 works just fine on my phone (two dual stack IPv6 Wifi at home and work)

If you get 10.X (cell) or 100.64.X-100.127.X (Hughes) address it's CGN

EDIT: and why call it carrier GRADE NAT, it's just plain old NAT...it's not special in any way, other than LACK of access to rules....

P.S. NO ISP should be allowed to do CGN without IPv6 Dual Stack supported.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by quesix:

Already seeing issues back in states with CGN and IPv6...

Well these are two separate issues.

said by quesix:

Windows XP machine on Hughes Net Gen4 (IPv6 unable to install on the xp machine due to unknown issue) getting CGN and transparent "accelerator" proxy server (no proxy in IE settings) that trys to serve up an IPv6 website, of course it fails...

"of course it fails..." No, that does not make any sense. Sounds like your ISP is completely and utterly incompetent. So they've upgraded a transparent proxy to something relatively new that understands IPv6 but doesn't have IPv6 configured on the system... I don't buy it that they're that incompetent. With how many major sites now have IPv6 access there is no way you could not notice such major breakage with their system if that were the case.

said by quesix:

EDIT: and why call it carrier GRADE NAT, it's just plain old NAT...it's not special in any way, other than LACK of access to rules....

It is when your NAT device can handle millions if not tens of millions of sessions. That's the whole point of the name.

said by quesix:

P.S. NO ISP should be allowed to do CGN without IPv6 Dual Stack supported.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Although I agree with you there are plenty of ISPs that will.

quesix

join:2005-12-19
Cary, IL

1 recommendation

your missing the point brad...In a perfect world these would be connected and IPv6 would be required as part of CGN as CGN is used for legacy sites that haven't upgraded....to call it carrier grade nat, gives impression it is "better" when in fact it's not...yes I understand it is a much large pool of users and connections and needs higher end hardware/software...

As far as HughesNet goes just look at their forums on this site... the "accelerator" is always breaking down... and it's not my ISP... but someone i heard about having issues...

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by quesix:

your missing the point brad...In a perfect world these would be connected and IPv6 would be required as part of CGN as CGN is used for legacy sites that haven't upgraded....to call it carrier grade nat, gives impression it is "better" when in fact it's not...yes I understand it is a much large pool of users and connections and needs higher end hardware/software...

Of course in a perfect world everyone would already be using IPv6 as the ISPs wouldn't be dragging their feet so bad. To assume it is better is foolish. It can't work magic. ISPs are making it pretty clear that it will break apps and certain configurations. But what can they do? There are not unlimited IPv4 addresses. You rely on IPv4 and this will be the pain you'll have to endure. It'll be the "cost" of using IPv4. As the pain rises it'll encourage people to use IPv6.


Soho97UK
Premium
join:2004-08-18
UK
kudos:1
reply to Cabal
BT users can opt out of the CG NAT trial if they want(AFAIK). Plusnet did trial CG NAT but have now wound it down - they also trialled IPv6. I'm not aware of what route they intend to take in the future(they are my current ISP). Although they are owned by BT they operate as a separate business.