[bzb5]

> One of the recent experiences of Linux Plumbers Conference convinced me that if you want to be part of a true open source WebRTC based peer to peer audio/video interaction, you need an internet address that’s not behind a NAT.

...or upnp and pcp, which work out of the box.

[milankragujevic]

UPnP is completely useless for CGNAT, and PCP would work only IF the CGNAT gateway would support it, which most don't (or it's disabled).

I don't think great difficulty about NAT is concerning CPE NAT, i.e. your local network, as it's trivial to forward ports (or port ranges) manually. Most problems are with CGNAT, i.e. on mobile broadband or some cable and DSL providers.

[bzb5]

Where I am there are more isps that support pcp than isps that support ipv6 at all (zero)

[milankragujevic]

Where I am the number of ISPs that support PCP is the same as the number of ISPs that support IPv6 - zero.

My point wasn't that IPv6 is currently the answer, my point was that it's impossible to host anything or be reachable by anyone for A LOT of people in the world.

[xxpor]

Using CGNAT while not offering IPv6 at all is professional malpractice.

[cassianoleal]

Good luck if you're behind CGNAT on IPv4, which an increasingly high number of people are.

[bzb5]

Which is why I said pcp. It helps to read the comment.

[cassianoleal]

Which only works if the ISP gateway has support for it and has it enabled, which in my particular case (and I suspect many others) is not true.

IPv6, OTOH, pretty much works out of the box.

It helps to become better informed.