PlayStationNetwork blocking of CGNAT public addresses

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Both gamers and content providers do not care. The gamers as they only care about the game itself and don't care about the technical mumbo jumbo. And the makers coz they only care about making money by producing content the gamers want. And you service providers are left with the headache of attempts to please both sides.
If this wasn't the case, then why after 20 years, ipv6 ain't rolled out.
Hence again I'd be voting for an ipv6 only day, but that will never happen.....
Kind regards,
Alexander Maassen
- Technical Maintenance Engineer Parkstad Support BV- Maintainer DroneBL- Peplink Certified Engineer

-------- Oorspronkelijk bericht --------Van: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Datum: 21-09-16 03:29 (GMT+01:00) Aan: Justin Wilson <lists@mtin.net> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Onderwerp: Re: PlayStationNetwork blocking of CGNAT public addresses

In message <09342130-874F-4FA4-B410-B7B66A75FA4D@mtin.net>, Justin Wilson write
s:

PSN is one reason I am not a fan of CGNAT. All they see are tons of
connections from the same IP. This results in them banning folks. Due
to them being hacked so many times getting them to actually communicate
is almost impossible. My .02 is just get the gamers a true public if at
all possible.

Justin Wilson
j2sw@mtin.net

What we need is business tech reporters to continually report on
these failures of content providers to deliver their services over
IPv6. 20 years lead time should be enough for any service.

Mark

2

If you told them they would have fewer NAT issues if they supported IPv6, they'd start to care. :wink: They know enough to hate NAT.

3

Both gamers and content providers do not care. The gamers as they only
care about the game itself and don't care about the technical mumbo jumbo.
And the makers coz they only care about making money by producing content
the gamers want. And you service providers are left with the headache of
attempts to please both sides.

Very much agree

If this wasn't the case, then why after 20 years, ipv6 ain't rolled out.
Hence again I'd be voting for an ipv6 only day, but that will never
happen.....

Disagree. IPv6 is meaningfully rolled out. Half or comcast and at&t subs
are observably on ipv6

http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/

And every (i think) iphone 7 ships with ipv6 default on from t-mobile,
sprint, T , and VZ. Same can be said of samsung phones 2 years ago.

Now, if abc isp and xyz gaming company don't deploy ipv6, they have nobody
to blame but themselves. Many of us have moved on, but it is sad when
you all need help tweeking your cgn or need help finding an IPv4 broker.

I feel your pain. But don't say ipv6 is not deployed. It is deployed, and
it carries more traffic than ipv4

http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2016/08/facebook-akamai-pass-major-milestone-over-50-ipv6-from-us-mobile-networks/

CB

Kind regards,