I suspect that when the guy tethering his Playstation calls up whining that it's showing strict NAT, they laugh at him and tell him to get lost... at least that's what I'd do if I was working for a cell company.
Actually for almost all of those problems they probably just say something along the lines of "that doesn't work". On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I was gonna say: Most of my NAT problems boil down to cell phone > extenders, VPN clients, and game consoles. > > Cell extenders and game consoles probably don't happen much with cell > phones. I suspect that VPN's on phones are common, but actual usage is > probably less than desktop VPN. > > I.E.: They may not have solved all the problems either, but only because > those problems aren't as relevant in their world, and therefore they don't > hear about it as much. > > This entire email is full of assumptions. I may be wrong. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> > Sent: 9/25/2016 3:13:55 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How the cell companies do nat? > > > what about tethering a playstation?... you know there is the guy > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> wrote: > >> On 9/24/16 9:11 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >>> CGNAT\NAT444 and IPv6. >>> >> >> >> All of my cell-enabled devices have an IPv6 address. That effectively >> means the IPv4 NAT problem doesn't exist for content like Google, Youtube, >> Facebook, etc. on those devices. >> >> ~Seth >> > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > >
