Netflix banning HE tunnels

Wed Jun 8 20:00:15 UTC 2016

Matthew, 

I was not complaining about the business model, or the need to comply with content provider requirements. The issue is the pathetic implementation choice that Netflix made when a trivial alternative was available. I agree that setting up rwhois and trusting the 3rd party tunnel providers to provide valid information is substantially more effort than the ROI on this would justify, but a redirect to IPv4-only requires no additional 3rd party trust for geo-loc than an IPv4 connection to begin with, would still catch the bad actors, yet works correctly for those trying to move the Internet forward. 

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew
> Huff
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 12:45 PM
> To: Laszlo Hanyecz; nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Netflix banning HE tunnels
> 
> The content providers wouldn't care if it was a very small number of people
> evading their region restrictions, but it isn't a small number. Those avoiding
> it are already not in good faith. While I don't agree with the content
> providers business model, it's their content, their rules.
> 
> If you don't think it's right that Netflix is blocking VPNs and tunnels, then
> switch to Hulu and/or Amazon, however it's just matter of time before they
> start blocking VPNs and tunnels themselves.
> 
> I agree that matching Geolocation with source IP addresses is a bad idea, but
> until someone comes up with a better idea and gets it implemented ( one
> that can't be modified by the end user), people with a business model that
> depends on it will continue to block based on IP. "Good faith" will be
> laughed at, and rightly so.
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Matthew Huff             | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations   |
> Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC       | Phone: 914-460-4039
> aim: matthewbhuff        | Fax:   914-694-5669
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Laszlo
> > Hanyecz
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 3:34 PM
> > To: nanog at nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2016-06-08 18:57, Javier J wrote:
> > > Tony, I agree 100% with you. Unfortunately I need ipv6 on my media
> > subnet
> > > because it's part of my lab. And now that my teenage daughter is
> > > complaining about Netflix not working g on her Chromebook I'm
> > starting to
> > > think consumers should just start complaining to Netflix. Why should
> > I have
> > > to change my damn network to fix Netflix?
> > >
> > > In her eyes it's "daddy fix Netflix" but the heck with that. The man
> > hours
> > > of the consumers who are affected to work around this issue is less
> > than
> > > the man hours it would take for Netflix to redirect you with a 301
> > > to
> > an
> > > ipv4 only endpont.
> > >
> > > If Netflix needs help with this point me in the right direction.
> > > I'll
> > be
> > > happy to fix it for them and send them a bill.
> > >
> >
> > They're doing the same thing with IPv4 (banning people based on the
> > apparent IP address).  Your IPv4 numbers may not be on their blacklist
> > at the moment, and disabling IPv6 might work for you, but the
> > underlying problem is the practice of GeoIP/VPN blocking, and the
> > HE.net tunnels are just one example of the collateral damage.
> >
> > I don't know why Netflix and other GeoIP users can't just ask
> > customers where they are located, instead of telling them.  It is
> > possible that some user might lie, but what about "assume good faith"?
> > It shows how much they value you as a customer if they would rather
> > dump you than trust you to tell them where you are located.
> >
> > -Laszlo
> >