I’m sure we’ll come up with a shitty way to work around the issue later. Recent example is how IPv4 was supposed to run out years ago, but thanks to shitty workaround deployed by telcos, no one felt the need to migrate to IPv6 even though the workaround makes the internet more restrictive and shittier.
It actually takes power away from ordinary users and put it in the hand of big corporation. It might sound ridiculous, but you’ll start to notice this if you compare how people use the internet 20 years ago vs now. For example, it’s no longer possible to communicate to other people over internet without going through an intermediary. Sending text, files, voice and video calls, all need to go through an intermediary to make sure your data went though. Even modern p2p protocols requires intermediaries in the form of stun/turn servers or chance are high that the participants can’t see each other.
As an exercise, try to communicate (text, voice, video, file transfer, gaming) with a group of friends over the internet without using any 3rd party service except DNS. It used to be no brainer in the past, but today it’s outright impossible if both party are behind a CGNAT, which is very likely (and almost 100% will happen if you live in a 3rd world country due to disproportionate IP blocks allocation that favor western countries).
Over the years, this trains internet users into thinking that the internet is not useable without getting an account on tech giants’ online services. Imagine if this restriction does not exist. The internet might be less centralized today, the internet giants might not be as giant, and people might use more p2p tech to communicate with each other and might have better privacy because they have less data captured by those 3rd party services.
Over the years, this trains internet users into thinking that the internet is not useable without getting an account on tech giants’ online services. Imagine if this restriction does not exist. The internet might be less centralized today, the internet giants might not be as giant, and people might use more p2p tech to communicate with each other and might have better privacy because they have less data captured by those 3rd party services.
My friend, that’s just laziness. Most people don’t want to know and don’t care to learn how to use technology. I don’t think we’d be in some Free and Open Internet era had NAT not been deployed, you’d still have people like us with tech knowledge splitting off into our own areas based on that ability and desire, while the herd flocked to the “do it for me” solutions provided by big tech.
True, most people don’t out of laziness, but at least people who care would still have an alternative option instead of the mess we have now. Also, in a parallel universe where the internet is not crippled, maybe 20 years of p2p development would be enough to propel it the point of mainstream usability, but I guess we’ll never know.
I’m sure we’ll come up with a shitty way to work around the issue later. Recent example is how IPv4 was supposed to run out years ago, but thanks to shitty workaround deployed by telcos, no one felt the need to migrate to IPv6 even though the workaround makes the internet more restrictive and shittier.
I really can’t stand that so much stuff is still IPv4 only. Gross.
Other than being annoying to deal with, how does PAT/Dynamic NAT make the Internet “more restrictive?”
It actually takes power away from ordinary users and put it in the hand of big corporation. It might sound ridiculous, but you’ll start to notice this if you compare how people use the internet 20 years ago vs now. For example, it’s no longer possible to communicate to other people over internet without going through an intermediary. Sending text, files, voice and video calls, all need to go through an intermediary to make sure your data went though. Even modern p2p protocols requires intermediaries in the form of stun/turn servers or chance are high that the participants can’t see each other.
As an exercise, try to communicate (text, voice, video, file transfer, gaming) with a group of friends over the internet without using any 3rd party service except DNS. It used to be no brainer in the past, but today it’s outright impossible if both party are behind a CGNAT, which is very likely (and almost 100% will happen if you live in a 3rd world country due to disproportionate IP blocks allocation that favor western countries).
Over the years, this trains internet users into thinking that the internet is not useable without getting an account on tech giants’ online services. Imagine if this restriction does not exist. The internet might be less centralized today, the internet giants might not be as giant, and people might use more p2p tech to communicate with each other and might have better privacy because they have less data captured by those 3rd party services.
My friend, that’s just laziness. Most people don’t want to know and don’t care to learn how to use technology. I don’t think we’d be in some Free and Open Internet era had NAT not been deployed, you’d still have people like us with tech knowledge splitting off into our own areas based on that ability and desire, while the herd flocked to the “do it for me” solutions provided by big tech.
True, most people don’t out of laziness, but at least people who care would still have an alternative option instead of the mess we have now. Also, in a parallel universe where the internet is not crippled, maybe 20 years of p2p development would be enough to propel it the point of mainstream usability, but I guess we’ll never know.
By not allowing you to port forward
Damn I need to reread my CCNA textbooks, I’ve forgotten a few things about IPv6 apparently since I’ve never worked at a place where it’s been used.
Oh no, I was talking about the IPv4, if it was IPv6 there wouldn’t be a need for providers to put people under NAT