RFC 1631: The IP Network Address Translator (NAT)
datatracker.ietf.org
This memo proposes another short-term solution, address reuse, that complements CIDR or even makes it unnecessary. The address reuse solution is to place Network Address Translators (NAT) at the borders of stub domains. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

From the conclusion:

NAT may be a good short term solution to the address depletion and scaling problems. This is because it requires very few changes and can be installed incrementally. NAT has several negative characteristics that make it inappropriate as a long term solution, and may make it inappropriate even as a short term solution. Only implementation and experimentation will determine its appropriateness.

  • kratoz29English
    30•29 days ago

    Ah, how to forget the first obstacle in my hobby self hosting projects, the damn CGNAT…

    “Just open the wireguard port bruh”

    No my friend, I don’t think that is gonna cut it.

    (Thankfully Zerotier and Tailscale work for me).

    • Doubletwist
      3•27 days ago

      I have the same issue (TRIPLE NAT’d! One of which is the CGNAT). Unfortunately I have external family that accesses from media boxes/TVs so those won’t work for me.

      Thankfully I was able to get a small VPS server for $2/mo and set up some reverse tunnels with auto-ssh. Seems to be working fairly well so far.

      All that said, I longingly look forward to the future when I don’t have to worry about NAT.

      • @[email protected]English
        2•27 days ago

        What’s really crappy is that my ISP which used to give me a public ipv4 and also supported ipv6 2as bought out, and now I’m on cgnat and ipv6 support has disappeared.

        Fuck metronet, it’s not even cheap anymore