Only works if you're not behind CGNAT, which has problems in and of itself. I pay my ISP an extra 29 DKK (about 4.50 USD at the moment) for a static address; my IPv4 connections and downloads in-general became way more stable after getting out from behind CGNAT.
Hell for hosting, but if you're doing adversarial interoperability as a client, it does help you avoid being IP-banned. (At least in Western countries. I hear that Africa and Latin America tend to just get their CGNAT gateways banned because site operators don't give a shit about whether users from those regions can use their sites)
The client feature only works for websites that care about making exceptions for CGNAT users. Plenty of them simply ban the shared addresses.
That's part of the reason why countries like India are getting so many CAPTCHAs: websites don't care for the reason behind lackluster IP plans from CGNAT ISPs. If the ISP offered IPv6 support, people wouldn't have so many issues, but alas, apparently there's money for shitty CGNAT boxes but not IPv6 routers.
Actually all it does is get everyone behind the CGNAT banned. I've lost access to the WSJ and NYT recently, and other websites over time. For every Cloudflare backed website, I have to pass a captcha on every access.
Fuck those people doing "adversarial interoperability as a client", AI scraping, et al, who take away from thousands of people for profit, then move on to the next pool of victims.
YouTube showed me a "this household watches suspiciously many videos" once when the provider moved us behind a CGNAT (because 100 households were suddenly watching from the same address, not just one).
It also messes a bit with geolocation, we frequently teleport to different places within the country.
Yeah, but in this case, the negotiation between the ISP and YouTube typically ends with the IP being unblocked. It's not like when one household is actually watching as much as 100 people, when the IP stays blocked.
And banning them makes an entire country unable to use your site. That might be tolerable (to the site owner, but not in general) if the country is Argentina. Not if the site is France. Which is why Argentina gets blocked a lot more than France and if you want to scrape things you'd do better on a CGNAT network in France.
CGNAT is completely irrelevant to the average person. It’s only an issue if you expect others to connect to you, which is something that almost all people don’t need.
(inb4 but the internet was made to receive connections! Well yes, decades ago maybe. But that’s not the way things have evolved. Get with the times.)
It contributes to it, because now you're behind the same public IP address as X other people. You're then X-times more likely to get flagged as suspicious and need to enter a CAPTCHA X-times more frequently.
It's not a direct cause, but if an IP is hitting my website with spam, I don't care if it's a spam bot or a CGNAT exit point. The only way to stop the spam is to take action against the IP address. For CGNAT customers, that means extra CAPTCHAs or worse.
You can ask your ISP for your own IPv6 subnet if you don't want to be lumped in with the people whose computers and phones are part of a scraping/spamming botnet.
Pathetic that in 2025 there still are games that rely on p2p connections, to the detriment of the experience because cheating can’t be detected server-side. GTA 5 is one of them.
At the very least if a game publisher wants to power down their own servers because they don't feel it's "worth" supporting their customers, they should post the server code so that the customers can continue to use the product they 'bought'.
That's way more expensive than what I already have. My ISP, by default, provides me a /56, of which I'm only using two /64 subnets at the moment. For an extra 29 DKK (4.50 USD), I get a static IPv4 as well.
I also don't need to worry about the additional latency of a VPN, and have symmetric gigabit speeds, rather than 100Mbps up/down.
