Re: V6 still not supported

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Not to necessarily disagree with you, but that is more of a Sony problem than an IPv4 problem.

- Jared

Jordi Palet wrote:

It is not a fixed one-time cost ... because if your users are gamers behind PSP, Sony is blocking IPv4 ranges behind CGN. So, you keep rotating your addresses until all then are blocked, then you need to transfer more IPv4 addresses ...

So under this perspective, in many cases it makes more sense to NOT invest in CGN, and use that money to transfer up-front more IPv4 addresses at once, you will get a better price than if you transfer them every few months.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet

El 30/3/22, 18:38, "NANOG en nombre de Jared Brown" <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es at nanog.org en nombre de nanog-isp at mail.com> escribió:

    Randy Carpenter wrote:

2

No, isn't only a Sony problem, becomes a problem for every ISP that has customers using Sony PSN and have CGN (NAT444), their IP blocks are black-listed when they are detected as used CGN. This blocking is "forever" (I'm not aware of anyone that has been able to convince PSN to unblock them). Then the ISP will rotate the addresses that are in the CGN (which means some work renumbering other parts of the network).

You do this with all your IPv4 blocks, and at some point, you don't have any "not black-listed" block. Then you need to transfer more addresses.

So realistically, in many cases, for residential ISPs it makes a lot of sense to analyze if you have a relevant number of customers using PSN and make your numbers about if it makes sense or not to buy CGN vs transfer IPv4 addresses vs the real long term solution, which is IPv6 even if you need to invest in replacing the customer CPEs.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet

El 30/3/22, 21:02, "NANOG en nombre de Jared Brown" <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es@nanog.org en nombre de nanog-isp@mail.com> escribió:

    Not to necessarily disagree with you, but that is more of a Sony problem than an IPv4 problem.

    - Jared

    Jordi Palet wrote:

    It is not a fixed one-time cost ... because if your users are gamers behind PSP, Sony is blocking IPv4 ranges behind CGN. So, you keep rotating your addresses until all then are blocked, then you need to transfer more IPv4 addresses ...

    So under this perspective, in many cases it makes more sense to NOT invest in CGN, and use that money to transfer up-front more IPv4 addresses at once, you will get a better price than if you transfer them every few months.

    Regards,
    Jordi
    @jordipalet

    El 30/3/22, 18:38, "NANOG en nombre de Jared Brown" <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es at nanog.org en nombre de nanog-isp at mail.com> escribió:

        Randy Carpenter wrote:

3

I would expect the trend to become that ISP's refuse to accommodate 3rd party vendors shenanigans to the point where it hampers their operations or to the point where it cost them more to do so.

Likely, they would sooner tell the customer that their vendor (whom they pay money) is blocking the ISP and that there must a) deal with their vendor and/or b) pay/use a dedicated static IP

Because as you point out, its impossible to support this trend after a certain point, and really, why should you?

With enough of that attitude, the trend reverses and vendors will have to start using other mechanisms, perhaps even ones where cooperation with the SP is a possibility.

Joe

4

I don't think this can happen if I'm right and the reason they need to block "shared" IPs is because the games/apps just don't work.

If I'm a gamer, and one of my possible ISPs is using CGN, and from time to time stops working, and another ISP is providing me a public and/or static IPv4 address, always working, and there is not too much price difference, what I will do?

And of course, as I just said in my previous email, the trend is only supported by transitioning to IPv6. Sony has been a lagger on that, instead XBOX had IPv6 support quite early and developers where properly trained to use it.

(note that I'm not a gamer, neither have any game console at home, actually never used one!, so I've no preference or any business relation with any game related company ... just commenting what I can see)

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet

El 4/4/22, 14:06, "Joe Maimon" <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> escribió:

    > No, isn't only a Sony problem, becomes a problem for every ISP that has customers using Sony PSN and have CGN (NAT444), their IP blocks are black-listed when they are detected as used CGN. This blocking is "forever" (I'm not aware of anyone that has been able to convince PSN to unblock them). Then the ISP will rotate the addresses that are in the CGN (which means some work renumbering other parts of the network).
    >
    > You do this with all your IPv4 blocks, and at some point, you don't have any "not black-listed" block. Then you need to transfer more addresses.
    >
    > So realistically, in many cases, for residential ISPs it makes a lot of sense to analyze if you have a relevant number of customers using PSN and make your numbers about if it makes sense or not to buy CGN vs transfer IPv4 addresses vs the real long term solution, which is IPv6 even if you need to invest in replacing the customer CPEs.
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    > Jordi
    > @jordipalet
    >

    I would expect the trend to become that ISP's refuse to accommodate 3rd
    party vendors shenanigans to the point where it hampers their operations
    or to the point where it cost them more to do so.

    Likely, they would sooner tell the customer that their vendor (whom they
    pay money) is blocking the ISP and that there must a) deal with their
    vendor and/or b) pay/use a dedicated static IP

    Because as you point out, its impossible to support this trend after a
    certain point, and really, why should you?

    With enough of that attitude, the trend reverses and vendors will have
    to start using other mechanisms, perhaps even ones where cooperation
    with the SP is a possibility.

    Joe

5

No, isn't only a Sony problem, becomes a problem for every ISP that has customers using Sony PSN and have CGN (NAT444), their IP blocks are black-listed when they are detected as used CGN. This blocking is "forever" (I'm not aware of anyone that has been able to convince PSN to unblock them). Then the ISP will rotate the addresses that are in the CGN (which means some work renumbering other parts of the network).

You do this with all your IPv4 blocks, and at some point, you don't have any "not black-listed" block. Then you need to transfer more addresses.

So realistically, in many cases, for residential ISPs it makes a lot of sense to analyze if you have a relevant number of customers using PSN and make your numbers about if it makes sense or not to buy CGN vs transfer IPv4 addresses vs the real long term solution, which is IPv6 even if you need to invest in replacing the customer CPEs.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet

I would expect the trend to become that ISP's refuse to accommodate 3rd party vendors shenanigans to the point where it hampers their operations or to the point where it cost them more to do so.

$ISP_1 refuses to accommodate Sony’s shenanigans…
    Three possible outcomes:

      1. $ISP_1 has competition. Customer blames $ISP_1 for network problem and customer to competitor
        that does.

      2. $ISP_1 has no competition. Customer blames $ISP_1 and keeps making expensive support calls
        to $ISP_1 making $ISP_1 wish customer would bother (nonexistent) competitor.

      3. $ISP_1 has competition. Competition also refuses to accommodate Sony’s shenanigans.
        Whichever $ISP customer is using this week continues to get support calls complaining about
        network issue. Sony continues to tell customer problem is with $ISP. $ISP continues to tell
        customer problem is with Sony. Lather, rinse, repeat.

All of this, of course, becomes an effective non-issue if both $ISP and Sony deploy IPv6 and get rid of the stupid NAT tricks.

Owen