I notice the IPv6 feedback thread is closed, so i have to make a separate post.
eBlocker Mobile continues to use IPv4 to connect your mobile device to your home network. For this connection to work, your Internet provider must also assign a (dynamic) IPv4 address to your router. As this is the case with all providers known to us, we are not planning any changes to eBlocker Mobile for the time being.
There are MANY ISPs which use CGNAT and do not provide public IPv4 to users. Virtually all cellular providers (cellular is often used at home for people in remote locations), Starlink, Many newer providers - eg in the UK all of the new/local fibre providers such as communityfibre, hyperoptic, litfibre etc use CGNAT, in some countries every provider uses CGNAT (eg thailand - ais/true/3bb/etc).
With a CGNAT setup you cannot receive inbound connections via IPv4, and outbound connections are subject to a performance penalty.
@robsmith Thanks for your feedback.👍
eBlockerOS is mainly used in German spoken countries where CGNAT is not wide spread. I'm with you @robsmith and also hope for some talented developer to join the team to bring IPv6 to eBlocker Mobile in future. 🙏
So your feature request is not drowning I'm moving it to the Feature Request board in a sec.
THX!
Starlink is used by quite a lot of users in Germany, and is the 12th most used provider in the country according to apnic stats.
Starlink uses CGNAT and always has.
Also all mobile providers in Germany support IPv6, and route legacy traffic through CGNAT so from a client perspective every user will be facing an unnecessary performance penalty here.
@robsmith Your voice is heard.👍
We'll surely tackle your feature request asap if a talented dev wants to pick up the task. As you might know, eBlockerOS is maintained by volunteers only, so we can only hope for the best (or for your involvement if you are a developer👏).
BTW: I'm with Vodafone Mobile in Germany fortunately I'm not "facing an unnecessary performance penalty". So for ~30% of the German mobile market CGNAT is not an issue (yet).
I'd wonder if German Telekom (~30% market share) or O2 (~30%) really "penalize" CGNAT. 🤔
Try testing from your mobile - dual stack pings to dns.google etc, you should find that v6 is slightly quicker and a shorter traceroute.
If the NAT gateway is heavily loaded the difference will be bigger. I also wonder if DT is IPv6-only with NAT64. Their subsidiary T-Mobile USA has this setup.
You can also try some dual stack speedtests:
<a href=" removed link "> removed link
Usually v6 will be quicker, the difference can be marginal if the operator has well specced NAT gateways and light load, but it can also be quite severe.
It's not that they explicitly penalize CGNAT, but rather that CGNAT requires additional hardware which direct routing does not. This hardware is complex and expensive so it adds a bit of overhead even if it's working optimally, or a LOT of overhead if it's overloaded. The cost of the hardware means that some providers underspec it. It's also an extra device, and thus an extra hop on the path.
Also the more traffic that uses the CGNAT gateway the more loaded it becomes, so ideally you want to avoid doing that wherever you can.