Can confirm this is happening. If you're lucky enough to have a choice in ISP, there are a few that won't CGNAT you. I pay a little extra for this ($10 a month) but it's worth it for me. Ask your ISP if that sounds interesting.

Is that really a feasible long term solution though? I require port forwarding and also work from home so require my service not get blocked due to some spammer on my block.

I’m sure your ISP would love to sell you a business connection for 3x the price

This honestly sounds like a perfect case for a business connection. Not only does it give you a static IP without NAT, possibly in an address block with other high paying (==reputable) people, it also bumps you up a lot in terms of customer service and service availability. Usually the first two questions in an outage are "how many customers are offline, and are any business connections impacted".

That assumes the ISP is willing to run a business connection to a residential address. Not every ISP will, especially if you're just a home user with special requirements and not an actual business.

Perhaps not, but two years in and still going fine. Maybe once IPv6 is more widely adopted I won't need it anymore.

That's such a ridiculous overcharge. Even a dollar a month would be well into overkill.

It includes a static IP, but yeah I agree it's a bit steep. Other ISPs would make me buy a business line, which would cost a lot more than $10 extra.

have you considered just using IPv6 instead of paying that charge?

NAT requires planning and expensive equipment; it's not obviously cheaper than IPv6.

Yes, but it doesn’t require upgrading all your routing hardware and the planning involved with adapting your physical network design to work with the hierarchical structure of IPv6 (we’ve had TCAM large enough to map every /24 of the v4 space for some time now, you can’t get away with that shit with v6 even if your hardware optimizes TCAM usage for routes up to /64’s).

This is why many residential ISPs and business haven’t implemented IPv6 yet (well, the later enjoys the false sense of security NAT provides too).

I would be very, very upset if my ISP decided to throw me into a NAT.

Fingers crossed they don't lol.

I'm behind CGNAT for my home connection :(

However, I also have native ipv6 to the home for as many devices as I want. It's easy to forget that carrier NAT is expensive for ISPs as NAT hardware needs a lot of fast RAM.

I feel like I would mind NAT less if they gave all the devices IPv6, similar to how it works on some LTE networks.

But IPv6 prefix delegation doesn't always work if you put your own router behind the ISP box...

As long as you have a public IPv6 address, just use that.