V6 still not supported

Mon Apr 4 15:00:22 UTC 2022

>
> . Less so a problem inherent to IPv4. A root cause fix would address
> Sony's hostile behavior.
>

Disagree, to a point.

The problem isn't technically with IPv4 itself, but with the lack of
availability of V4 addresses. This tends to force things like CGNAT, which
then compounds the problem when companies rely too heavily on 'reputation'
services that put a scarlet letter on entire subnets, sometimes forcing
providers to spent money to buy a new range on the open market that
hopefully isn't 'tainted', and tossing the old subnet back out to make it
someone else's problem.

IPv6 itself doesn't solve that ; these reputation providers could still
mark /64s as 'bad', but it wouldn't impact entire ISPs worth of users when
they did.

( Of course, the better solution is really on the service end to have a
better system to associate bad activity to specific users, or other methods
that aren't reliant on reputation services , but that won't happen unless
they start seeing revenue loss from people who want to pay them for a
service but can't because of too much reputation blocking, and I think
that's a long way away, if it ever gets there.)

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 8:02 AM Jared Brown <nanog-isp at mail.com> wrote:

> My apologies for expressing myself poorly.
>
> What I meant to say is that this is primarily a problem caused by Sony and
> the Sonys of the world. Less so a problem inherent to IPv4. A root cause
> fix would address Sony's hostile behavior.
>
>
> - Jared
>
>
>
> Jordi Palet 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
>
>
>
> El 30/3/22, 21:02, "NANOG en nombre de Jared Brown"
> <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es at nanog.org en nombre de
> nanog-isp at 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:
>         > >> >> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>         > >> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol
> support
>         > >> >
>         > >> > Out of interest, how would this come about?
>         > >>
>         > >> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4
> services.
>         > >  Could you please be more specific about which costs you are
> referring to?
>         > >
>         > >  It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4
> or IPv6 bits to
>         > >  you.
>         >
>         > Have you priced blocks of IPv4 addresses lately?
>           IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing
> $X/month cost.
>
>         - Jared
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220404/2facb533/attachment.html>