There is IPv4, it's an internet address that points to a specific computer, or at least it's supposed to. IPv4 supports up to 4294967296 addresses, which might seem like a lot until you realize how many devices are connected to the internet. Almost the entire IPv4 range is full, and ISPs have resorted to letting 1 IP point to multiple computers also known as NAT. It's what your router does, and why your laptop and phone all connect to the internet using your routers' IP address. Carrier Grade NAT takes it one step further and allows hundreds or more home networks to connect from a single IP address.

CGNAT kind of sucks because you can't run servers behind them because it doesn't know which of the hundreds of computer traffic has to go to. IPv6 would solve this entire mess, but ISP's won't invest in it because they don't want to spend the money and just delay the inevitable until they have to.

True ELI5: We ran out of signs for house numbers and instead of getting new ones we started giving everyone in a street the same house number

[–] aldalire@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Thank you. So in a way if the carriers upgrade their infrastructure there would be a decrease in privacy because then it’s a one-to-one correspondence between IP address and customer, but then the customer would have the ability to host servers? The one scenario where the industry dragging their heels on upgrading is actually good for the consumer (in some respects) lol

Adding commas to that number: 4,294,967,296 addresses. More humans that IP address seems like a huge miscalculation in the internet infrastructure

[–] harry315@feddit.de 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Who could've thought in 1981 that more than a few thosand universities would ever like to connect to the then 250 machines big ARPANET. With 4 billion addresses, there was plenty of headroom at the time.

In 50 years, when the last ISP finally switches to IPv6, we'll be wondering how short sighted we were as now every pencil has an IP address in the interplanetary compu-global-hyper-meganet.

[–] confusedbytheBasics@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

We planned for that. We should be fine at least until we are an interstellar species. We could assign an IPV6 address to EVERY ATOM ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH, and still have enough addresses left to do another 100+ earths. It isn’t remotely likely that we’ll run out of IPV6 addresses at any time in the future.

[–] sep@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Goverments (depending on juristiction) have laws requiering isp's to keep track of cgnat port combos. So not only is there no privacy from ipv4 cgnat. Now the isp must also spend a lot of money on the nat state tracking database.
If you need that kind of privacy, use a vpn and the tor onion network.

[–] aldalire@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago

Ah of course i was gonna say even with a cgnat they would have some way of identifying the traffic.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 3 weeks ago

It's a bit more complicated than that. Governments still spy on an IPv4 address, but because that address is shared, it's spying on everyone behind it. At least with IPv6, it'd be targeted.

[–] mako@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 3 weeks ago

Usually the NAT is at home in the router and every customer has their own IPv4 address. NAT at the ISP means several customers share an IPv4 address. If the authorities are now investigating the activities of an IPv4 address, it is difficult to say which customer it was because multiple of them shared the IP address.

[–] ChillPill@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

I know very little about ipv6, but CGNAT is Carrier Grade Network Address Translation.

NAT (Network Address Translation) is how your home router takes your one public IP address and is able to simultaneously allow your phone, your PlayStation, and your smart fridge use the internet.

CGNAT is basically the same thing expect on a much larger scale and controlled by you ISP.

[–] Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

IP addresses ran out, IPv6 adds more addresses than we may need, ISPs decide to take away the user's ability to host servers (more or less (more less than more)) rather than upgrading the infrastructure

[–] uid0gid0@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

My take is they had to upgrade the infrastructure for CGNAT, why not just implement IPv6.