|
|
|
|
|
|
by sambazi
779 days ago
|
|
|
the push of p2p comms in gaming was never a good idea, but i can totally see how it was sold. apart from that i don't know why any game would need incoming connections. the upnp cargo cult in gaming is real though, despite the prevalence of cgnat. i agree that you should have choice but am not yet ready to accept that ~11B ppl cannot manage with ~3B addresses given the typical ratio of users per v4 with nat. |
|
|
Both sides of the internet (provider and user) need an IP address. An average human may possibly require two or more addresses simultaneously (phone, laptop, office PC, and maybe IoT) in the future. And internet infrastructures like routers and managed switches, although never visible to the end users, need an IP address for themselves too. And don't get me started on containerization.
Furthermore, there are internal networks running out of RFC1918 addresses to use so even internal IPv4 has a real limit. Comcast is one of them, T-mobile is another. I believe Facebook moved to IPv6-core because of this too.
People constantly find new ways to use more IP addresses. 4.3B is just too small, even with NAT.
The fact that we are deploying CGNAT everywhere should have made that obvious enough.