nanog mailing list archives

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels


From: Spencer Ryan <sryan () arbor net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:02:03 -0400

We don't know, and will never know if the content providers went to Netflix
and said "You need to ban based on IP range" speculation at this point
isn't useful.


*Spencer Ryan* | Senior Systems Administrator | sryan () arbor net
*Arbor Networks*
+1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
www.arbornetworks.com

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf () tndh net> wrote:

Matthew,

I was not complaining about the business model, or the need to comply with
content provider requirements. The issue is the pathetic implementation
choice that Netflix made when a trivial alternative was available. I agree
that setting up rwhois and trusting the 3rd party tunnel providers to
provide valid information is substantially more effort than the ROI on this
would justify, but a redirect to IPv4-only requires no additional 3rd party
trust for geo-loc than an IPv4 connection to begin with, would still catch
the bad actors, yet works correctly for those trying to move the Internet
forward.

Tony


-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Matthew
Huff
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 12:45 PM
To: Laszlo Hanyecz; nanog () nanog org
Subject: RE: Netflix banning HE tunnels

The content providers wouldn't care if it was a very small number of
people
evading their region restrictions, but it isn't a small number. Those
avoiding
it are already not in good faith. While I don't agree with the content
providers business model, it's their content, their rules.

If you don't think it's right that Netflix is blocking VPNs and tunnels,
then
switch to Hulu and/or Amazon, however it's just matter of time before
they
start blocking VPNs and tunnels themselves.

I agree that matching Geolocation with source IP addresses is a bad
idea, but
until someone comes up with a better idea and gets it implemented ( one
that can't be modified by the end user), people with a business model
that
depends on it will continue to block based on IP. "Good faith" will be
laughed at, and rightly so.



----
Matthew Huff             | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations   |
Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC       | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff        | Fax:   914-694-5669


-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Laszlo
Hanyecz
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 3:34 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels



On 2016-06-08 18:57, Javier J wrote:
Tony, I agree 100% with you. Unfortunately I need ipv6 on my media
subnet
because it's part of my lab. And now that my teenage daughter is
complaining about Netflix not working g on her Chromebook I'm
starting to
think consumers should just start complaining to Netflix. Why should
I have
to change my damn network to fix Netflix?

In her eyes it's "daddy fix Netflix" but the heck with that. The man
hours
of the consumers who are affected to work around this issue is less
than
the man hours it would take for Netflix to redirect you with a 301
to
an
ipv4 only endpont.

If Netflix needs help with this point me in the right direction.
I'll
be
happy to fix it for them and send them a bill.


They're doing the same thing with IPv4 (banning people based on the
apparent IP address).  Your IPv4 numbers may not be on their blacklist
at the moment, and disabling IPv6 might work for you, but the
underlying problem is the practice of GeoIP/VPN blocking, and the
HE.net tunnels are just one example of the collateral damage.

I don't know why Netflix and other GeoIP users can't just ask
customers where they are located, instead of telling them.  It is
possible that some user might lie, but what about "assume good faith"?
It shows how much they value you as a customer if they would rather
dump you than trust you to tell them where you are located.

-Laszlo






Current thread: