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 2 weeks ago (5 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

[–] sep@lemmy.world 6 points 2 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 2 weeks ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)