Re: V6 still not supported

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Apr 4, 2022, at 05:06 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.

$ISP_1 refuses to accommodate Sony’s shenanigans…
                Three possible outcomes:

                        1. $ISP_1 has competition. Customer blames $ISP_1 for network problem and customer to competitor
                                that does.

                        2. $ISP_1 has no competition. Customer blames $ISP_1 and keeps making expensive support calls
                                to $ISP_1 making $ISP_1 wish customer would bother (nonexistent) competitor.

                        3. $ISP_1 has competition. Competition also refuses to accommodate Sony’s shenanigans.
                                Whichever $ISP customer is using this week continues to get support calls complaining 
about
                                network issue. Sony continues to tell customer problem is with $ISP. $ISP continues to 
tell
                                customer problem is with Sony. Lather, rinse, repeat.

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.

Owen

> 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