@sans_isc AFAICT they don't and even if they would that would violate RFCs and make them liable to @BNetzA fines.

Speaking of shitty #CGNAT:
I should protest of them using #RFC1918 address space [10.0.0.0/8] when #RFC6598 states they must use 100.64.0.0/10 instead...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6598

@HopelessDemigod not really, but I have issues with other mobile networks which - in violation of #RFC6598 - use #RFC1918 adress space for #CGNAT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

I'm shure that @stux runs mstdn.social as dual-stack, so even NAT & PAT should not be the problem...