The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

Wed Sep 1 19:04:17 UTC 2021

On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:26 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 9/1/21 10:59 AM, Nimrod Levy wrote:
> > All this chatter about IPv6 support on devices is fun and all, but
> > there are providers still not on board.
> > They operate in my neighborhood and they know who they are...
> >
> This is about inside your premise before any NAT's enter the picture.
> What would be nice is if home routers offered up v6 as the default way
> to number and v6 tunnels past ISP's that don't have v6. Home routers
> could make that all rather seamless where users wouldn't need to know
> that was happening. It's really a pity that home routers are a race to
> the bottom where everything else with networking is expected to evolve
> over time.
>

I can't disagree about the quality of CPE, but I don't think that adding
tunnels by default is appropriate. We tried that with 6to4 and while that
worked, it didn't work well. Where would the far end of the tunnel
terminate? Who wants to build and manage that infrastructure? I'd rather
have the ISPs focus on deploying native IPv6 connectivity or at the very
worst, on-net 6rd. But I can tell you from experience that 6rd will only
take you so far before you figure out that you really needed native in the
first place.

Even more so, tunnels don't solve the problem that started this thread in
the first place. Netfilx (and probably others) consider IPv6 tunnel brokers
to be VPN providers and deny those connections. I stopped using a tunnel at
home for that very reason.

I think it's 100% appropriate for a CPE to not offer IPv6 on the inside
interfaces if it doesn't have a v6 upstream connection. What would the
point be?

> Mike
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210901/12a2232b/attachment.html>