I'm considering joining but I see it was mentioned they use CG-NAT ? [unless I get a static IP]
What do I need to know about, what does that mean for me ?
What can't I do ?
I assume this will be an issue for them when they go IPv6 ?
![]() ![]() |
Whinery: Why would CG-NAT be an issue for IPv6?
If no public V4 addresses are being handed out, then there's no need to hand out any private V4 address on the CPE/RGW, is there?
The RFC1918 address currently used between the CPE and CG-NAT is a placeholder that doesn't "do" anything or "go" anywhere, other than get the CPE to the CG-NAT. So, if you aren't getting a static V4 IP, then you don't need a V4 IP at all. You can use the V6 on the CPE WAN for that.
If someone gets a static V4 and a static V6 address, they'll be dual-stack on the CPE WAN, and no CG-NAT. If the person selected V6 only, they'll get static V6, but wouldn't need any V4 for connectivity to the outside world. Access to the V4 Internet would be through DNS64, which would point the V6 address to the CG-NAT (running as NAT64 in this example), and the CG-NAT would enable access to the V4 Internet.
Of course, that doesn't cover the LAN. Skype requires a V4 address, or the application will crash. So anyone wishing to run Skype will need a V4 LAN range. They *could* run V4 only on the LAN and V6 only on the WAN. Or they could run dual stack on the LAN, or V6 only on the LAN.
Someone running V4 (or dual stack) on the LAN with V6 on the WAN would end up using 464XLAT to access the V4-only Internet from a V4-only application (like Skype).
CG-NAT is required for practical IPv6 implementation today. So having one of the required components in place and running doesn't seem to be an issue, but is a preparation for V6.
But as for CG-NAT breaking things, I've seen some other Geekzone threads with people reporting very specific problems, but in general, it's not a huge issue. Lots of carriers around the world use it, and have for years. I'd be interested in whether the CG-NAT issues reported by others are related to all CG-NAT or specific implementations of CG-NAT. It might be that different vendor's implementations of the same thing may give different results.
------------Above is general technical discussion, not MyRepublic's views, below is the "official" answer--------------------
I can only recommend that you try it under the free trial period, and come back here and share your experiences. We've not received complaints of any services not working under CG-NAT that shouldn't be (incoming servers).
Dairyxox: My understanding is that CG-NAT effectively takes control of the firewall away from the user.
This doesn't mean it cant be configured, but you have to ask the provider to configure the firewall rules you want, and you are at their mercy as to weather they will allow such changes.
Am I wrong?
![]() ![]() |