If it makes tracking hard to impossible then its BASED
The end to end principle died in 1994, I’m sad too that we can’t all be one happy family, but let it go.
If it makes tracking hard to impossible then its BASED
But it does not make tracking impossible and only a little harder. From privacy standpoint it’s like using manditory VPN hosted by your carrier. And as we know, you must trust your VPN provider to not log.
And is it worth it? I would much more prefer to have real IP address and be able to host things in my house, including a full speed I2P node that would really make “tracing impossible”. Someone needs to host such nodes.
I meant “ISP’s use CGNAT over IPv6” as ISP’s use CGNAT instead of IPv6 to solve IPv4 address limit issues, not as using IPv6 through CGNAT, although some do use IPv6 through CGNAT for backwards compatibility with IPv4 only devices.
ipv6 cgnat is evil
If it makes tracking hard to impossible then its BASED The end to end principle died in 1994, I’m sad too that we can’t all be one happy family, but let it go.
But it does not make tracking impossible and only a little harder. From privacy standpoint it’s like using manditory VPN hosted by your carrier. And as we know, you must trust your VPN provider to not log.
And is it worth it? I would much more prefer to have real IP address and be able to host things in my house, including a full speed I2P node that would really make “tracing impossible”. Someone needs to host such nodes.
I meant “ISP’s use CGNAT over IPv6” as ISP’s use CGNAT instead of IPv6 to solve IPv4 address limit issues, not as using IPv6 through CGNAT, although some do use IPv6 through CGNAT for backwards compatibility with IPv4 only devices.
oh i get what you mean. i can understand using ipv4 cgnat to solve these issues.
mine thankfully uses it by default but allows advanced users to switch to a normal ip if they want to.