[mschuster91]

> ISPs can CGNAT for cheap

The problem is customers don't like CGNAT. You can't run Animal Crossing on Nintendo Switch in network mode as a host if you don't place the Switch as a catch-all in the DMZ.

Wish I were joking here - especially due to the security risk involved in running something in all-ports-open on the Internet - but Nintendo doesn't seem to (want to) run STUN/TURN servers.

[jeroenhd]

Nintendo's hilariously bad Switch networking guides ("to make games work, forward ports 1-65535 to your switch") are more of a Nintendo problem than a CGNAT problem. Normally I'm all for blaming CGNAT for shitty internet issues, but Nintendo is at fault this time, and ISPs should rightly tell their customers to ask Nintendo to get its shit together. Even without CGNAT, STUN/TURN is important to get peer to peer connections working.

CGNAT brings tons of issues, but following Amazon's pricing model, I don't think consumers would be willing to pay $4 a month to rent an IP address. Better to sigh and shrug at the two of three games and programs that don't work than to spend $48 a year, especially with the current cost of living being on the rise.

[mschuster91]

> Normally I'm all for blaming CGNAT for shitty internet issues, but Nintendo is at fault this time, and ISPs should rightly tell their customers to ask Nintendo to get its shit together. Even without CGNAT, STUN/TURN is important to get peer to peer connections working.

I agree with you, but it doesn't change reality... Nintendo doesn't give a fuck and (from hearsay) people with Nintendo Switches make up a huge proportion of service calls from customers that want CGNAT disabled and pay for a legitimate IP address.