With CGNAT becoming more widespread, formats like this might need expansion to include location data for ports. Ie. Port 10,000-20,000 are consumers in New york, port numbers 20000-30000 are in Boston, etc.

▲

raggi 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do you have actual evidence of this? What ASN operates this way?

▲

kalaksi 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sounds awful, though. Maybe we should get more widespread usage for IPv6 instead.

▲

sgjohnson 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes. I’ll never forgive IETF for standardizing CGNAT back in 2013. They should have just said “no, deploy IPv6 with a transition technology”.

If that had happened, IPv4 would likely already could be regarded as a relic of the past.

	▲	kortilla 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The ietf standardization was irrelevant so I would give them some slack. ISPs were using CGNAT already in a widespread fashion. The ietf just said, “if we’re gonna do this shit, at least stay out of the blocks used by private networks”.