V6 still not supported

Mon Apr 4 13:08:55 UTC 2022

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 at jmaimon.com> escribió:

    JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
    > 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

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.