V6 still not supported

Wed Apr 6 21:32:37 UTC 2022

There is also Customer contacts ACCC in Australia and complains that Sony is not supplying a working product and Sony gets fined and instructed to change their rules about customers behind CGNATs.

> On 7 Apr 2022, at 03:24, Jared Brown <nanog-isp at mail.com> wrote:
> 
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> $ISP_1 refuses to accommodate Sony’s shenanigans…
>> 		Three possible outcomes:
>  The three possible outcomes assume status quo is maintained.
> 
>  However, if ISP A makes a business decision to not accommodate 3rd party shenanigans and modifies policies accordingly, then we have a new equilibrium.
> 
>  Outcome 1 is maintained: Customer churns off ISP A. Everybody wins.
> 
>  Outcome 2 is no longer a single outcome, but rather several:
>   a. Customer is upsold to gaming package which includes a static IP. 
>   b. Customer returns Playstation and buys Xbox instead.
>   c. Customer declines gaming package, but continues to bother customer service. Customer is directed to 3rd party customer support. Further customer contact is handled via self service portals and other low cost customer service channels.
>   d. Customer terminates contract and goes offline.
> 
>  Outcome 3 is resolved by ISP A telling returning customers that service at that address is only available if ordered together with the gaming package.
> 
>> All of this, of course, becomes an effective non-issue if both $ISP and Sony deploy IPv6 and get rid of the stupid NAT tricks.
>  Well yes...
> 
>  ... but why would Sony do that when they have so conveniently externalized all costs?
> 
> 
> - Jared

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka at isc.org