> Communities typically block edits from IP addresses that obscure individual users.
Surely they are aware that this is basically all IPs nowadays...?
If that's genuinely the policy then it should be almost equivalent to just requiring an account for all edits, so why not just do that?
There are indeed many classes of IP address which multiplex large numbers of users (mobile network exits, VPN exits, ISPs with CGNAT, some corporate web filtering systems, shared public wifi, tor, satellite ground station exits, residential proxies, ...).
However, claiming that "basically all" IPs are multiplexed is definitely wrong. A home or small office broadband line typically gets a dynamic-but-ephemerally-unique IP, same as it always did.
The effect of IPv6 on this isn't totally clear to me yet. If anything, as IPv6 deployment among ISPs increases, the trend seems to be for less multiplexing and not more.
IPs assigned to homes and small offices are still multiplexed. It's just a case of magnitude. (In other words, it's rare for a home or small office to contain just a single person.)
The policy as stated makes no sense, if they intend for it to be something like "more than 5 people per IP" they should just say so.
> The effect of IPv6 on this isn't totally clear to me yet. If anything, as IPv6 deployment among ISPs increases, the trend seems to be for less multiplexing and not more.
FWIW, every ISP I've used in the last ~10 years has delegated me an IPv6 prefix, resulting in each device in the network getting a unique IPv6 address. I've never seen any kind of NAT used in the wild for residential IPv6.
It's kind of the internet equivalent of keeping drug dealers out of your club by banning anyone who lives in a poor area. A lazy (and likely discriminatory) policy, but a simple one, and effective.
My current home broadband setup gives me the same IP address for months at a time, across router reboots. Advertisers love it, I'm sure.
> > Communities typically block edits from IP addresses that obscure individual users.
> Surely they are aware that this is basically all IPs nowadays...?
> If that's genuinely the policy then it should be almost equivalent to just requiring an account for all edits, so why not just do that?
With the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the lack of progression to IPv6 from many ISPs, we're likely going to see users unable to anonymously edit if they start blocking those behind a CGNAT.
