Tim, like you, I've been baffled by this choice as well. Why streaming video providers continue to choose a costly and convoluted path when a less convoluted and cheaper path exists to reach (seemingly) the same destination I will never know. Perhaps one company did it that way so others just copied the mistake? Perhaps providers feel it's necessary because not all of them require transactions with a billing/mailing address all the time (think free/trial services or gift cards)? One can only attempt to conceive of the inconceivable...
Or am I woefully naive, and it’s actually trivial for a non-US resident to come up with a US credit card and billing address to pay for the service?
- Buy a prepaid debit card.
- Rent a mailbox at Mailboxes Etc. or a similar company.
- Log in to the prepaid card’s web site and enter the address of your rented mailbox as the billing address.
Tim, like you, I’ve been baffled by this choice as well. Why streaming
video providers continue to choose a costly and convoluted path when a
less convoluted and cheaper path exists to reach (seemingly) the same
destination I will never know.
Again, streaming video providers did not make this choice. Content owners did, and made its enforcement a contractual requirement for leasing that content to the streaming video providers.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
Probably because a market would quickly pop up to sell or rent accounts created in one region to others.
Question: is anyone who is currently suffering this issue also doing 1:many NAT? Or running a proxy server that might cause multiple clients to all appear from the same IP address? I believe NAT might be the cause of one of our customer’s complaints wrt content provider blocking.
This is absolutely an issue with Xbox Live/Sony PSN or RBLs used by mail servers for reputation purposes. For better or worse these systems equate one IPv4 address == one user (and possibly one IPv6 /64 == one user). My opinion is that this may be a reasonable or “good enough” assumption as long as you put a time limit on the assumption (so dynamic addresses can be reassigned) and have a rough idea of what a user means (a household, subscriber circuit, or similar). But it obviously goes out the window if you have 10 or 20 unrelated subscribers (possibly in different towns) sharing a single IP address in a 1:many NAT. This may be one of the not-so-obvious support costs that comes up when one decides to run a CGN.
Talk to someone who has been sued for downloading or sharing movies. They’ll swear on their own grave that one IP can never equal one user. 
-A
I’ll swear it’s a horrible assumption.
Personally, I use many IP addresses each day.
Some of them are also used by others.
Some of them are not.
Equating IP Address <-> Person relationships as being anything remotely resembling 1:1 is beyond absurd. To do so with an IPv6 /64 is even more so.
Considering it to be reasonable or “good enough” is so far from valid I don’t even know where to begin.
Owen
I'm the OP.
We do not do CGNAT or any sort of proxying. It is straight up one
public IP per access customer, with their NAT'd DSL router taking the
public IP. Nor do we offer any sort of VPN services. Just because of
our past history, all access customers are static IPs, so many of them
have had the same IP for over a decade (ie. highly unlikely that I have
a bad apple hopping a dynamic pool and ruining it for all).
Furthermore, we have 3 disjoint ARIN PIR blocks. All three of them are
blocked across the whole range. So, somebody at Hulu took a look
at our AS, and blocked all we announce.
Bad wording on my part. I wasn’t trying to imply their statement was true–just a bit of humor.
-A
Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
Dear colleagues,
Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.
Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman
Interhost Networks
www.interhost.co.il
Dmitry@interhost.net
Mob: 054-3181182
Nice!
Is this what I think it is? a historical moment for the internet
for the story books?
I think it is less historic than when IANA ran out of blocks to
delegate to the regional registries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion
Thanks,
Donald
Does this mean we are finally ripe for widespread IPv6 adoption?
(Admit it, someone had to say it!)
Huh. I guess we get to go home early today then? And look into that whole “Aye Pee Vee Sicks” thing next week aye boss?
Thanks
I am lurking on this mail list. Sometimes is hard to decipher whats
goin on. Always interesting. You guys are awesome.
I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6.
Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman
It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks? That is what is mostly happening today with CGN.
Every server that offers services to the public should be making them available over IPv6. Most of the CDNs support both transports. Why are you scared to tick the box for IPv6? HTTPS doesn’t care which transport is used.
Because we can’t only use ipv6 on the boxes, each box with ipv6 must have IPv4 until the last eyeball broadband user will have ipv6 support.
Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman
Interhost Networks
www.interhost.co.il
Dmitry@interhost.net
Mob: 054-3181182
The two things feed each other. Big content networks have had IPv6 for years now, and the mobile phone networks are primarily, if not exclusively IPv6 on the inside.
Adding IPv6 now helps push the cycle forward, whether you are an eyeball, content, or other network.
Doug
I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new
organizations deploying dual-stack, and eyeball networks can more easily
move a /16 or even bigger to mostly IPv6 and a small CGNAT address space
than content providers can free up IPv4 addresses during the time that dual
stack is still needed.