[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

Because they were running out of IPv4 addresses and they are legally required to not have more than IIRC 16 customers behind one address at any time for law enforcement reasons, so they figured that CGN wasn't worth it and decided to adopt IPv6 instead.

[Ambroos]

Not the case. All Telenet customers still get at least 1 public IPv4 address without NAT.

[koffiezet]

Not all customers do. Professional contracts and people asking special stuff or modifying their (Telenet-managed) firewall settings automatically get one. Other consumers - which is the large part of their customer base - get IPv6 with CGN/NAT64 with maximum 16 clients NAT'ed behind a public IPv4 address for legal wiretap+privacy reasons.

[Ambroos]

Really? I've never seen anyone with a shared IPv4. Maybe because every time I look into it the first thing I do is modify their firewall settings slightly. Heh.

[londons_explore]

ISP's could argue that websites should be logging source port numbers of tcp connections. That would allow them to have thousands of customers behind the same IP, and still able to identify a single one.

[josteink]

I find the amount of effort people still put into not learning IPv6 quite staggering.

This kinda stuff is clearly madness.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

BTW, I just noticed: No, you cannot realistically have thousands of customers behind the same IP. There are only 65535 TCP ports per IP address, just loading your typical website that loads resources from tons of domains can easily need a hundred ports at once.

[londons_explore]

You only need 1 port for a connection per domain. You can reuse the same source port for different domains.

So only 65,535 customers can establish a connection to facebook.com from the same ip.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

No, they couldn't, because that would be illegal. An ISP cannot just record the communication of their customers because it makes thing cheaper for them.

Also, that easily generates petabytes of logs, so it's not really cheap either.