Kevin Karhan 
@jeff nope.
In #Germany they still violate #RFC6598 and use #RFC1918 [10.0.0.0 /8] for #CGNAT because @BNetzA doesn't give a shit that this bricks #VPN|s!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT#Shared_address_space
Big Kumera Energy@goetz @fluepke AFAICT, all #MNOs and #MVNOs in #Germany violate #RFC6598 by using #RFC1918 address space ( 10.0.0.0/8) bricking #VPNs that use the same address range instead of using the #CGNAT address space ( 100.64.0.0/10 ).
Sadly, @BNetzA doesn't really care to enforce anything...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_shared_address_space
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6598
Kevin Karhan 
@Linux_Is_Best @th_willenbrink @whitekiba @lucent
BTW you should let the your telco regulators know that #Tmobile violates #RFC standards by literally using #CGNAT on #RFC1918 adress space, which is explicitly not allowed as per #RFC6598.
@housepanther THAT'S WHY!
100.64.0.0/10 is #CGNAT adress space as per #RFC6598, which SHALL NEVER allow intra-Client communication but only Gateway <-> Client.
@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...