PlayStationNetwork blocking of CGNAT public addresses
lists at mtin.net
Tue Sep 20 15:33:17 UTC 2016
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.
j2sw at mtin.net
xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric
> On Sep 20, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Danijel Starman <theghost101 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Something similar happened to a local FantasyConon I was helping set up, we
> had only two PS4 machines there and accounts provided by Blizzard for
> Overwatch. Outside IP of the LAN (as it was NATed) was banned by PSN in
> about 8h. There was no other traffic other then those two accounts playing
> Overwatch so my guess is that they have some too aggressive checks. I've
> managed to convince our ISP there to change the outside IP of the link so
> we got them working the next day but it happened again in 8h.
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Simon Lockhart <simon at slimey.org> wrote:
>> We operate an access network with several hundred thousand users.
>> we're putting the users behind CGNAT in order to continue to give them an
>> service (we're all dual-stack, so they all get public IPv6 too). Due to the
>> demographic of our users, many of them are gamers.
>> We're hitting a problem with PlayStationNetwork 'randomly' blocking some
>> of our
>> CGNAT outside addresses, because they claim to have received anomalous, or
>> 'attack' traffic from that IP. This obviously causes problems for the other
>> legitimate users who end up behind the same public IPv4 address.
>> Despite numerous attempts to engage with PSN, they are unwilling to give us
>> any additional information which would allow us to identify the 'rogue'
>> on our network, or to identify the 'unwanted' traffic so that we could
>> block it, or use it to identify the rogue users ourselves.
>> Has anyone else come up against the problem, and/or have any suggestions on
>> how best to resolve it?
>> Many thanks in advance,
More information about the NANOG