CgNAT
Contents5
❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub
This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Learn more ▼
Issues may include:
- This article needs to be expanded to provide meaningful information
- This article requires additional verifiable evidence to demonstrate systemic impact
- More documentation is needed to establish how this reflects broader consumer protection concerns
- The connection between individual incidents and company-wide practices needs to be better established
- The article is simply too short, and lacks sufficient content
How you can help:
- Add documented examples with verifiable sources
- Provide evidence of similar incidents affecting other consumers
- Include relevant company policies or communications that demonstrate systemic practices
- Link to credible reporting that covers these issues
- Flesh out the article with relevant information
This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.
Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT, also known as LSN and NAT444) is used by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to mitigate IPv4 address exhaustion by making thousands of customers share a single public IPv4 address.
Complaints from law enforcement agencies
Law enforcement agencies find it harder to identify criminals behind an IPv4 address used by thousands of people. As a result the agency may have to tap connections of all users sharing that address to identify the criminal. [1][2]
A 2016 survey conducted by the European Cybercrime Centre revealed that 90% of EU Member State cyber divisions regularly encountered errors related to CGNAT technologies during investigations, sometimes forcing them to discontinue cases or employ more resource-intensive approaches. [3][2]
The process of reverse-tracking from CGNAT logs is fundamentally flawed. In criminal cases where CGNAT logs are used as primary evidence, there exists significant potential for misidentification, as the same public IP address and port combination might be reassigned to different users within a very short time. [2]
Security concerns
If a malicious actor using a CGNAT IP address gets blacklisted by a server/website then all users sharing the same CGNAT IP will also get blacklisted.[4]
A DDoS attack targeted at one user behind a CGNAT IP address affects all users behind that address, which can disrupt service for entire neighborhoods.[5][6][4]
Service limitations
Because multiple people share the same public IP address, port forwarding becomes impossible in practice. This prevents them from hosting personal websites or having remote access to home security cameras or personal computers. CGNAT basically breaks all protocols that require direct connection to work.[7][8]
Games or services that rely on P2P communication (e.g. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe) are also affected by CGNAT: if all of the users aren't able of receiving packets then a connection can't be established.
To circumvent these limitations, ISPs typically offer subscriptions for dedicated IPv4 addresses or IPv6 tunnels.[9]
ELI5: Why (and how) does CGNAT break the internet?
Let's assume that normal IP addresses are "public" phone numbers and that IPs used by CGNAT are "private" phone numbers, that is numbers that can only initiate calls, not receive them. let's assume that there are 2 users (user A and user B):
1) User A wants to call user B, and both users have "public" phone numbers: no problem here, the only thing that user A needs to do is insert user B's phone number into the dialer!
2) User A wants to call user B, but user A only has a private number (CGNAT). there's nothing stopping user A from calling user B, but user B will only see a generic phone number, a number that is used by thousands of other users.
3) User A wants to call user B, but user B only has a private number (CGNAT). since user B can't receive calls, to establish communication between user A and user B, user B is the one that needs to initiate the call.
4) User A wants to call user B, but both users only have private numbers (CGNAT). Both users can initiate calls, but neither of them can receive them, thus a connection can't be established. there's only one solution to this, having user A and user B call user C (a man in the middle that has a "public" IP address thus being able of receiving calls) with user C rerouting the voice from user A to user B and viceversa. this means that there's an additional cost and privacy risks, since a not well intentioned man in the middle can eavesdrop on the conversation.
How does IPv6 resolve the issue?
There are only roughly 4 billion IPv4 addresses (or phone numbers), compared to the roughly 340 undecillion IPv6 addresses (that's more than the number of grains on planet earth SQUARED!). 4 billion addresses are not enough for every single user, hence the need of reusing addresses, potentially assigning one to thousands of users (there may be only 8 billion humans on planet earth, but the numbers of devices connected to the internet vastly exceeds that). IPv6 does not have those limitations, and because reusing IPv6 addresses is useless due to the vast number, every single IPv6 address is inherently "pubic" (aka being able of receiving and initiating calls).
References
- ↑ European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) (17 Oct 2017). "Are you sharing the same IP address as a criminal? Law enforcement call for the end of Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) to increase accountability online". europol.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 13 Jan 2026.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Gözükara, Furkan (12 Aug 2020). "Challenges and possible severe legal consequences of application users identification from CNG-Logs" (PDF). HuggingFace. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation. Elsevier Ltd. (published 8 Nov 2021). doi:10.1016/j.fsidi.2021.301312. Archived from the original on 25 Mar 2026. Retrieved 22 Mar 2026 – via ScienceDirect.
- ↑ European Police Office (Europol), page 57-58. "IOCTA 2016 INTERNET ORGANISED CRIME THREAT ASSESSMENT" (PDF). europol.europa.eu. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 Feb 2026.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ↑ 4.0 4.1 Asturias, Diego (21 Jul 2025). "CGNAT: The Workaround to IPv4 Depletion [2025]". rapidseedbox.com. Archived from the original on 6 Nov 2025.
- ↑ Newman, Sean (8 Mar 2022). "There Goes the Neighborhood: The DDoS Disadvantages of Carrier Grade NAT". corero.com. Archived from the original on 18 Aug 2025.
- ↑ Turner, Glen (1 Oct 2019). "The Effect of DDoS Attacks on Carrier-grade NAT Devices". a10networks.com. Archived from the original on 3 Sep 2025.
- ↑ Swer, Daryll (25 Mar 2021). "Shortcomings of CGNAT and Potential Workarounds". daryllswer.com. Archived from the original on 3 Feb 2026.
- ↑ "Pros & Cons Deploying Carrier Grade NAT (CGNAT)". brandergroup.net. Archived from the original on 16 Feb 2026.
- ↑ "About Static IP addresses". att.com. 8 Mar 2024. Archived from the original on 11 Nov 2025.