×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BT Begins Customer Tests of Carrier Grade NAT

timothy posted about a year ago | from the party-line-but-with-less-yelling dept.

Networking 338

judgecorp writes "BT Retail has started testing Carrier Grade NAT (CGNAT) with its customer. CGNAT is a controversial practice, in which IP addresses are shared between customers, limiting what customers can do on the open Internet. Although CGNAT goes against the Internet's original end-to-end principles, ISPs say they are forced to use it because IPv4 addresses are running out, and IPv6 is not widely implemented. BT's subsidiary PlusNet has already carried out CGNAT trials, and now BT is trying it on "Option 1" customers who pay for low Internet usage."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

338 comments

Priority Failure. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652665)

If people had spent as much money on IP6 as they have on NAT, we'd be done by now.

Re:Priority Failure. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652811)

Wrong. BT will charge you "extra" for a non-crippled internet line.

Re:Priority Failure. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653131)

99.999 percent of people will never notice or care. They could make a free opt-out to satisfy the geeks and few would ever even ask for it.

Re:Priority Failure. (1)

localman57 (1340533) | about a year ago | (#43653527)

Exactly. I am too young to remember, but my guess is there was a time when people were crying bloody murder about having a dynamic IP address, and bitching about how you had to pay extra for a static one.

Re:Priority Failure. (5, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#43653563)

No, this time never existed. Back when everyone who had an internet connection cared about their connectivity there was no NAT - or at least none at the provider level. It's only when consumers hit the internet that we got NAT on a wide scale, and all those people only consumed data for the most part. People who were early adopters and were used to being hands on, a small fraction of the growing tide, cared then and care now. As time marches on, that fraction gets smaller and smaller.

Re:Priority Failure. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652835)

But then ISP's wouldn't have a new way to tier internet access and make you pay more for the same service or less.

Re:Priority Failure. (2)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about a year ago | (#43652887)

Businesses make money by charging people for scarce resources. IPV6 addresses are in no way scarce, so why would they invest any money in that?

With NAT, they can keep making money the way they always have with minimal additional investment, and they can make even more money by offering dedicated IPV4 addresses to people who pay extra for some kind of "platinum premium plus pro" plan.

Re:Priority Failure. (2)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43652937)

Businesses make money by charging people for scarce resources

uh, no. businesses make money by providing value which customers then pay for. that doesn't mean artificially scarce resources, which aren't truly scarce. This will however, break a ton of shit very quickly.

Re:Priority Failure. (4, Insightful)

Noughmad (1044096) | about a year ago | (#43653045)

that doesn't mean artificially scarce resources, which aren't truly scarce.

That's why those De Beers guys are so poor.

Re:Priority Failure. (1)

show me altoids (1183399) | about a year ago | (#43653385)

Wish I had some mod points. Regardless of which side of the current argument you are on, De Beers is an insane example of how a company can create artificial scarcity, and do it for over 100 years, while making boatloads of cash.

Re:Priority Failure. (4, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43653705)

De Beers creates artificial exclusivity, not scarcity. It's a subtle but important distinction.

They produce a product that people value not because it's particularly rare, but because it's just uncommon enough to be a status symbol. Various substitutes can look and act similarly, so the high prices aren't justified by an actual need for the product. Rather, the need is for the brand itself, and the company creates and perpetuates the value of that brand by limiting supply. They ensure there's just enough supply to meet demand, but not enough surplus to impact the prices people are willing to pay.

Steve Jobs understood this concept well.

Re:Priority Failure. (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about a year ago | (#43653195)

uh, no. businesses make money by providing value which customers then pay for

And what is of value?

Things that are scarce.

Re:Priority Failure. (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year ago | (#43653197)

uh, no. businesses make money by providing value which customers then pay for.

You just explained yourself the whole point with artificially-limited resources: you make the resources scarce, you end up with value, then you sell that.

Re:Priority Failure. (1)

Ja'Achan (827610) | about a year ago | (#43652903)

But IPV4 was never going to run out! There were so much new blocks to free up, nobody could've seen this coming!

Re:Priority Failure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653001)

Anyone who didn't fail 3rd grade should be able to say: "4 billion IP addresses divided by 7 billion people... That's not going to work". Without using a calculator.

Re:Priority Failure. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653293)

People have been crying wolf [wikipedia.org] for 20 years (I was told in grad school that we were going to run out of IP4 addresses in 2 years. That was in 1993.). Now the wolf is here, and nobody believes them.

Re:Priority Failure. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653119)

NAT is comparatively cheap to implement.

Re:Priority Failure. (2)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year ago | (#43653345)

Yeah, it's sad but it was also inevitable in a world of companies driven more by selfish buisness interests than a desire to improve the system as a whole.

The thing is NAT delivers it's benefits immediately. You deploy the NAT box and then you can connect more computers than you have IPv4 address for. Simple. Yes some applications will break, that is why if you are a provider selling service you deploy it on your lowest tier customers who are least likely to be using such applications and represent the smallest loss of revenue if they decide to quit over the issue. If you are a company serving internal users you work out who does and doen't need to accept incoming connections to perform their buisness role.

For most networks* IPv6 only delivers it's benefits when a substantial fraction of OTHER PEOPLE have also deployed it thereby allowing you to start deploying IPv6 only systems in roles that need external connectivity. Until then it's just an extra cost with no benefit. So the selfish but rational thing to do is to wait for other people to go through the pain of early IPv6 deployment and then learn from their mistakes.

* There is at least one provider that is so damn big that they ran out of private IPv4 addresses to address systems that did not need external connectivity but that is the exception.

Re:Priority Failure. (2, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#43653603)

Yeah, it's sad but it was also inevitable in a world of companies driven more by selfish buisness interests than a desire to improve the system as a whole.

Unfortunately, it's not that simply. ISPs are faced with a very serious and legitimate business problem. -- switching to IPv6 is very expensive but provides no benefit to them. For example, the millions (tens of millions?, hundreds of millions??) of modems that would have to be replaced because they can only handle IPv4. These are typically supplied by the ISP. Replacing all of them is an enormous expense, and when you're done, everything works exactly the same as it did before. From a business standpoint, there is no benefit to justify the expense.

Or, the ISPs can say to their customers:

"We've made a change to our system. It isn't any faster, it isn't any different, everything works exactly as it did before, BUT, you have to pay for a new modem or else you can no longer connect to the Internet. Oh, and by the way, you'll probably have to buy a new router too, since many home routers, even new ones sold recently, don't support IPv6. So good luck with that."

If people had put more thought into the transition (1)

Marrow (195242) | about a year ago | (#43653543)

we would be done by now. They should have written an extension, not a replacement.

Re:Priority Failure. (3, Interesting)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#43653619)

They shouldn't be able to call it "Internet" access if it's not a public IP address. This means they should not be classified as an ISP because they would not be offering Internet access as their primary service, just a crippled gateway to the Internet.

How about.... (1)

skyraker (1977528) | about a year ago | (#43652673)

helping get IPv6 implemented rather than crying about it not being implemented?

Re:How about.... (1)

hinchles (976598) | about a year ago | (#43652737)

I'd love them to put me on ipv6 if I ever need to get to the v4 range I can always vpn to one of the work servers and use that as a bridge as they're both v4 and v6 enabled.

Killing IPv4 (1)

eksith (2776419) | about a year ago | (#43652677)

Is the only solution. This is a stopgap measure like carpooling and congestion charges that don't actually fix the original problem of a diminishing resource.

Re:Killing IPv4 (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43652901)

Umm, carpooling and congestion charges both work. Ultimately, unless you force people to not leave their home, people still need to go to work, and there aren't very many options available for dealing with that.

Re:Killing IPv4 (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43653107)

It takes an interesting mind to watch thousands of 5-passenger cars go by with a single occupant and not think that carpooling is a solution. Just one additional passenger will double the capacity of the road.

Re:Killing IPv4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653191)

Simplistic much?

Re:Killing IPv4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653277)

Simplistic much?

Accurate more.

Re:Killing IPv4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653409)

Not really. For example, some of those carpooling may be doing so as an alternative to buses or other public transport, in which case there is no impact on the number of passengers carried by the road. To name just one way in which the statement is simplistic.

Re:Killing IPv4 (1)

DarkVader (121278) | about a year ago | (#43653465)

So will doubling the speed of the cars.

Or adding lanes.

But carpooling isn't a solution unless two people are coming from the same place and going to the same place.

Ah, the bad old days... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43652679)

Fantastic! This will be just as wonderful as AOL was, back when they were still unsure about this whole 'ISP' fad, and offered ghastly semi-access to the internet proper. I think I just threw up in my mouth from all the nostalgia!

Re:Ah, the bad old days... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653349)

Fantastic! This will be just as wonderful as AOL was, back when they were still unsure about this whole 'ISP' fad, and offered ghastly semi-access to the internet proper. I think I just threw up in my mouth from all the nostalgia!

Me too!

Just use IPV6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652699)

Just use IPV6 and do it properly... why on earth BT is not capable of doing this is beyond me...

Re:Just use IPV6 (1)

Slackus (598508) | about a year ago | (#43652909)

The main reason in my opinion most ISPs are not fully migrated to IPv6 is because there are MANY inhouse and 3rd party apps that ISPs use for monitoring, operations, business etc that do not support IPv6 yet. It not just a matter of upgrading the routing infrastructure to support IPv6, they have to uplift most if not all of their operational tools as well, which all adds up to millions.

Governments and corporations love this (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652721)

They have "fixed" the internet so it looks more like television. You are back to be a content consumer, and any attempt to communicate directly with another content consumer will be regulated.

bye bye port forwarding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652745)

lol

Re:bye bye port forwarding (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | about a year ago | (#43653565)

For the vast majority of users, port forwarding isn't a priority. BT are selling this to lower tier internet users like my Granma who knows nothing about port forward and doesn't care. So long as she can send and receive emails, use a web browser and make the odd Skype call, she has no other need.

You and I on the other hand need to have the port forwarding capabilities, but then you and I probably need higher bandwidth etc that a higher tier package gives us.

I'm not saying it's right, I think they should skip this and go to IPv6. But port forwarding isn't a feature that the vast majority of internet users need or use.

Oh, the old internet... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652749)

Presumably they'll give you a block of static ipv6 at least

"Not widely inplemented" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652783)

The easiest solution would be to implement it then.

Have some balls, and just do it. I'm sure there will be tons of calls from people using computers and routers from the late 90's. Send them a free router/network card/dongle.

Re:"Not widely inplemented" (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | about a year ago | (#43652875)

Who's gonna pay for the "free" dongle? And how on earth can you make IPv6 a premium option if you don't make IPv4 unbearably broken and inconvenient for users? And once they start crying you offer a "new and improved internet".
Sad jokes aside - why aren't they implementing NAT64 ? It's solves the problem in the same way as NAT, except more and more resources will have incentive to move to IPv6 and once the momentum is gained and all of the resources are there you can just drop NAT64 altogether without anyone noticing.

Re:"Not widely inplemented" (4, Informative)

xorsyst (1279232) | about a year ago | (#43652993)

BT already gives all customers a home hub (router) as part of the deal, this is pretty standard in the uk. They upgrade them every couple of years for you, so going to an IPv6-enabled one is not difficult.

On the other hand.... (4, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43652799)

With CGN, they can't *POSSIBLY* argue that an IP address somehow is linked with a particular subscriber anymore.

This is going to create a hell of a problem when people inside the CGN start doing stuff they aren't supposed to outside of it, and those people outside can't do anything useful with the IP that they have.

Re:On the other hand.... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43652869)

Given that the usual move when you have an IP and want to identify John Doe is to ask the ISP, I assume that the same principle will still work just fine. After all, if the ISP isn't keeping track of which traffic to a given IP needs to go to which subscriber, the system will break, so they will still know what the story is....

Re:On the other hand.... (4, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43653013)

Nope.... not remotely. Which is the whole problem.

Because if BT implements CGN, then the IP that somebody outside ot BT would have for somebody inside of it would actually map to a whole bunch of BT subscribers. BT has no possible way to tell which subscriber utilized the IP because all of them did... possibly even all at exactly the same time, unless BT maps every subscriber to a unique global IP anyways, at which point BT doesn't gain anything by using CGN at all.

Re:On the other hand.... (1)

hinchles (976598) | about a year ago | (#43653135)

Wonder if it'd open up the potential for exploiting since you and other subscribers are potentially on the same vlan kinda perhaps you could packet sniff it or find out the internal ip's of the others in your nat session. Perhaps you could simply just get yourself ddos'd taking out your entire nat block for connectivity and simply reconnect your own router to get a new nat block.

I suspect this won't end well.

Re:On the other hand.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653249)

CGN in service provider networks typically keeps track of port numbers that are used by subscribers behind the BNG. For example, customer 1 might be assigned ports 5000-5199, customer 2 5200-5399, etc. Those records will certainly be kept.

All a lawsuit pirate has to do is provide the time, IP, and port(s).

Re:On the other hand.... (1)

Imagix (695350) | about a year ago | (#43653311)

Not true... the CGN unit can do a bunch of interesting things to sort this out. Assigning or hashing port numbers to source IPs, to maintaining a massive set of logs of which subscriber used which IP and port at what time. Not saying that this is a _good_ thing, but is theoretically possible.

Re:On the other hand.... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43653325)

My point is that, for NAT to work, the NAT system has to track activity between internal hosts sharing an external IP and the outside world in order to handle the address translation process. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to rewrite a packet coming from the outside and send it on to the appropriate internal host.

So, if an outside entity knows that shared IP w.x.y.z did something, BT's NAT has to know which subscriber behind the NAT was responsible, because it would otherwise be incapable of correctly sending responses from the outside to that subscriber's internal IP.

Whether they retain this information as long as they do customIP information is unknown; but the address translation table must, for NAT to work, contain all the information needed to pin down a given activity to a given internal IP.

Re:On the other hand.... (2)

bsdaemonaut (1482047) | about a year ago | (#43653611)

The company requesting information would need to know the public facing source port and correlating time otherwise there would be no way to look up the correct state/mapping. The company requesting this information wouldn't be able to know this information unless the user was connecting directly to their servers or they themselves were playing man-in-the-middle. The former option is plausible with some activity, i.e. if a peer were directly connecting to them in a torrent, but the latter option would be illegal in most any situation I can think of. So while it still may be /possible/, it is definitely much more difficult nor am I convinced ISPs would be held to such exacting standards -- I run some relatively small routers by comparison, and at any point in time there can be thousands of (relatively short-lived) states, we're taking about some pretty massive amounts of data compared to what is required now.

Re:On the other hand.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653347)

Nope.... not remotely. Which is the whole problem.

Because if BT implements CGN, then the IP that somebody outside ot BT would have for somebody inside of it would actually map to a whole bunch of BT subscribers. BT has no possible way to tell which subscriber utilized the IP because all of them did... possibly even all at exactly the same time, unless BT maps every subscriber to a unique global IP anyways, at which point BT doesn't gain anything by using CGN at all.

Are you saying that CGN doesn't allow for an internal time stamped log of NAT assignments?

Re:On the other hand.... (1)

bsdaemonaut (1482047) | about a year ago | (#43653687)

Sure, it's possible, but the company requesting NAT assignments would need to know the public facing source port which would only be possible if the user was connecting directly to the company requesting information. That is comparatively hard compared to requesting lists of ip addresses from a torrent tracker per say.

Re:On the other hand.... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year ago | (#43653485)

To track abuse reliablly from behind a NAT two things are required

1: the service being abused logs port number information as well as IP and time information
2: the NAT keeps sufficient logs to map that IP/port/time combination back to a user.

If the NAT keeps sufficient logs then in some cases item 1 may not be required, for example if the abused service can also provide the IP the abuse was received on then that is likely to narrow things down significantly.

Re:On the other hand.... (2)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43653607)

Except the time isn't known... Unless you can guarantee that the ISP and the destination clocks are synchronized to the second.

Re:On the other hand.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652879)

Yep, thinking of moving to BT option 1 so I can bittorrent with impunity.

Re:On the other hand.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652897)

That is assuming that the Telcom companies are not already keeping a long term log file on the who is accessing what with a time stamp.

Re:On the other hand.... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43652961)

doesn't really matter, all that piracy shakedown stuff is coming to a close a prenda is being brought front and center for those specific activities. There are very, very wide implications for what is going on that will probably stop a large amount of the "piracy settlement" firms.

Re:On the other hand.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653087)

Copyright trolls never made much out of having solid evidence, chances are they'll just try to sue everyone that used that IP.

Re:On the other hand.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43653153)

That'd be kinda like prosecuting everybody who had walked into a store in a particular morning for shoplifting when only one item went missing.

Re:On the other hand.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653337)

That's why you have data retention laws.

username1, with internal ip 10.1.1.2 from udp port 12345 accessed via external ip 1.2.3.4 udp port 12345 destination ip 8.8.8.8 port 53

...for every connection, from anywhere to anywhere.

BT Statement: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652827)

"Yeah, so, like we cba to implement this IPv6 thingamajiggy. Thought you might like some NATs instead though? It sounds like "cats" Cats are good. So we're all good now?"

Re:BT Statement: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653163)

Who says cats are good?

Fine for most casual types (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652843)

For most casual users of the web, it is fine.
But for people that actually use the internet beyond the web, it is a god damn nightmare.

Pretty soon you can expect to see internet-facing IPs carry a huge premium. It is going to suck.
Do what you can, implement IPv6 encrypted mesh networking for your town and get people off the general internet. Most people just talk to their friends on facebook.
Kill the facebook, make your own mesh social network, save the internet.
There are many DIY mesh networking implementations. The only problem will be ISPs differ in how they allow you to use their connections. (most ban you from making servers but people do it anyway)
Some ISPs will disallow you to re-broadcast your connection on a large scale, even if it is free and a large package you bought.
You'd likely need to pay them a premium on your end. So don't do it if you are clueless about this.

Also, I hope they put more mobiles behind these. Mobile users should already be on IPv6 as it is and be put through an IPv4 tunnel if they need v4 resources.
All games on them are casual multiplayer anyway, unless it is local play. And that is about the only thing of worth to these people that will be impacted.

CG NAT is not new! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652873)

Odds are you've already been subjected to CG NAT -- especially if you have a wireless contract or are using some cheap DSL reseller. Check you're "public" IP address - if you're in the RFC 1918 or RFC 6598 IP ranges (10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16 or 100.64/10) you're being NAT'ed.

Re:CG NAT is not new! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652965)

Are you fucking stupid? We're talking about NAT at the ISP, not your fucking local firewall.

Re:CG NAT is not new! (1)

compro01 (777531) | about a year ago | (#43653493)

Your cell carrier doesn't count as an ISP for your smartphone? You don't get a publicly routable address on any cell network I've used.

Re:CG NAT is not new! (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year ago | (#43653519)

Mobile providers have been doing it for ages but at least here in the UK fixed line providers generally haven't.

No choice (1, Informative)

markus_baertschi (259069) | about a year ago | (#43652885)

The carrier has probably no choice. He can no longer get IPv4 addresses for new customers, so either he refuses customers or uses NAT to map multiple customers on the same IP.

On the other hand, the average Joe customer will not see the difference. He can surf as before and all his apps will work as before. Some apps (mostly p2p stuff) will suffer, but most internet user don't use those.

If you as customer do need a 'real' IP, then there always is the option to get a more expensive option.

Re:No choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653055)

A whole lot of internet users do use p2p. Programs like skype have a good bit of p2p, torrents are pretty popular, for lots of things, wow patches with p2p and many other things. Honestly, the only right way of doing things in having the whole internet move to ipv6

Re:No choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653139)

The carrier has probably no choice. He can no longer get IPv4 addresses for new customers, so either he refuses customers or implements IPv6 with 6to4 proxying for all new customers.

On the other hand, the average Joe customer will not see the difference. He can surf as before and all his apps will work as before. Some apps (mostly p2p stuff) will be easier to configure than before, but most internet user don't use those.

If you as customer do need a version 4 IP, then there always is the option to get a more expensive option.

FTFY

Ahh yes..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652925)

A step back for the Internet. Perhaps if ISP's actually took some of their huge profits and started implementing IPV6 instead of bending over for their shareholders, the world would be a better place.

and a 1000 nerds cry out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43652971)

Why not at least implement ip6 and make the cgnat 6to4? O.o

Re:and a 1000 nerds cry out (1)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | about a year ago | (#43653151)

The story actually implies that this is on their roadmap.

A considerable part of the problem is that many new devices are not IPv6 compatible, some sort of NAT is required.
New devices aside, the world is full of older IPv4 only devices.

Need some explanation here... (1, Interesting)

Pollux (102520) | about a year ago | (#43653059)

Over the last eight years and my previous three ISPs, my router has never once received anything other than a 192.168.x.x or a 10.x.x.x IP address from my local ISP. Not once have I received a live & legit IPv4 address. I have to pay a lot more for those. What's the difference between this and CGNAT?

Re:Need some explanation here... (1)

Imagix (695350) | about a year ago | (#43653331)

Odd.. every ISP that I've had gives out public IPs. Now, they're only willing to give you 2 usually, but they're proper public IPs. I'm not counting visiting hotels and such.

Re:Need some explanation here... (2)

GrandCow (229565) | about a year ago | (#43653379)

Over the last eight years and my previous three ISPs, my router has never once received anything other than a 192.168.x.x or a 10.x.x.x IP address from my local ISP. Not once have I received a live & legit IPv4 address. I have to pay a lot more for those. What's the difference between this and CGNAT?

You are thinking of your routers internal address, the one you use to access it from inside your home network to configure and troubleshoot. They are talking about the routers external address, the one the rest of the internet sees.

Re:Need some explanation here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653457)

It's a much larger scale. Private citizens don't tend to use all of their bandwidth constantly, meaning the total load can be averaged out. Businesses, on the other hand, have heavier loads and fear they could lose customers if, due to this setup, they were isolated from said customers.

In otherwords - current NAT only risks a small area each time, CGNAT could risk entire countries internet accessibility.

Re:Need some explanation here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653491)

Google "what is my ip".

Re:Need some explanation here... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year ago | (#43653547)

CGNAT is NAT for your external IP address. Your router will assign private network IP addresses so your devices on your internal network, but the external interface on your router will have a publically addressable IP address assigned by the pool allocated to your ISP. Depending on their size, they may have a pool of tens of thousands or millions of addresses to assign, but you definitely got one even if you didn't know it.

Head on over to http://whatismyipaddress.com/ [whatismyipaddress.com] to find out.

Re:Need some explanation here... (1)

department_g33k (2917139) | about a year ago | (#43653559)

You're probably plugging into the inside of your ISP's CPE (Customer Premise Equipment) Modem/Firewall/Router combo. If you log into THAT device and put it into "Bridge Mode" you should get a public IP. But basically, you're double NAT'ed otherwise. Only difference between this and CGNAT is that the IP your ISP gave your modem isn't shared by dozens of other people.

Re:Need some explanation here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653575)

if true that is beyond absurd. those addresses can not be routed on the public net (as per rfc1918).

i guess an ISP could give that address if they were modifying the packets on their end with NAT before it leaves their internal network destined for the public net, but i find it really hard to believe any ISP does that. it would be the internet equivalent of a penny in the fuse box.

Shouldn't be doing anything on the open net anyway (2)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year ago | (#43653073)

It's pretty easy to set up a node on Tor. We could just declare the "open internet" lost to commercial interests and do all the "interesting" stuff on an encrypted network. Sure, it's slower than an open connection, but with increasingly common cable and optical connections it's still faster than even reasonably fast DSL from a couple years back.

I've had to deal with this. (5, Informative)

Gerafin (1408009) | about a year ago | (#43653083)

Having to share an IP address with tons of people is absolutely, 100% a crippling experience. There are plenty of sites (newspapers, the site I get textures from, RapidShare, etc.) who limit their services by IP address. There's nothing quite like seeing messages about how your IP has exceeded the download limit on a website you've never visited before. Also: having to deal with bans when playing online games, as many are IP-based. The impossibility of hosting your own servers for games or other purposes. BitTorrent is nigh unusable. I would not pay a dime for this kind of a service, ever again.

What do you mean IPv6 isn't implemented (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653201)

Every freaking network stack in existence is updated to IPv6, it's just the carriers that refuse to turn it on!

At least they're being honest... (1)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about a year ago | (#43653213)

And letting us know from the get go.

How many unscrupulous ISPs could be doing this behind closed doors right now without anyone noticing??

Which would be more evil? (1)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | about a year ago | (#43653217)

If BT required all devices on it's network to be IPv6 compliant, many existing in use devices would cease to function.
If BT said you MUST replace your working, but not IPv6 compliant device there would be an even louder cry of EVIL!

The situation is not very good, but there aren't any alternatives.
This is like politics. It's not about choosing the better choice, but the less evil one.

Verizon isn't much better (4, Interesting)

zerofoo (262795) | about a year ago | (#43653287)

Verizon started field testing IPv6 on their FIOS network in 2010. I figured it's 2013 - they should be done testing by now.

I called our business services rep about a month ago and asked about IPv6 service for our FIOS connections at our offices.

The rep's response:

"IPv6, what's that?" "Hold on. Let me ask my support engineer."

Support engineer's response:

"IPv6 - What's that?"

I may retire from the IT business before Verizon deploys IPv6.

-ted

What's the BFD with not doing v6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43653339)

I know people fear change and all, but at this point, what's the BFD here? Why can't we just start rolling out v6, it seems like a reasonable solution? This is not a rhetorical question. Does anyone know what is taking so damn long? At this point, if we let the legacy crap keep holding up the change we're never going to get there.

At some point you just have to rip the bandaid off and go.

No ipv6 for you (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#43653393)

"Limiting what customers can do..." seems to be the new norm... along with with "shut up. give up rights. sign EULA"

CGNAT has nothing to do with End-to-end (4, Informative)

bgt421 (1006945) | about a year ago | (#43653537)

The end-to-end principle has to do with where network logic is placed, not which devices are reachable, routeable, or have an IP address. As simply as possible, the end-to-end principle means that we should have smart end hosts and a dumb network. This is why routers don't guarantee packet delivery -- its up to the hosts (with TCP, et al.) to ensure this. This is in contrast to telephony networks, where the network is responsible for almost everything.

There are good reasons to oppose CGNAT, but the "end to end principle" is not one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle [wikipedia.org]
or, if you're inclined to primary sources:
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/End-to-End%20Arguments%20in%20System%20Design.pdf [mit.edu]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...