Re: Ipv6 help

[Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us>]

I can prove, as an ISP, that I am delivering the packets. Many providers will have to do this until the content moves 
to IPv6, so what will their excuse be? The provider has no choice when they have more customers than IPv4 address 
space. They will have to do something to provide access to the IPv4 Internet for these customers. If the ISP created a 
service that wasn’t NAT444 for gamers and charged accordingly, they would probably get drawn and quartered.

It’s a no win situation and it really is Sony that is causing this issue. PR campaigns and educating customers is 
probably the only way they can win this argument, when they already have the technical battle won.

Just checked with 2 of my customers who do NAT444 and no issues with PSN… YMMV.

> On Aug 26, 2020, at 2:00 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26/Aug/20 20:38, Brian Johnson wrote:
>
> > I‘m going further... They shouldn’t have to care. Sony should understand what they are delivering and the 
> > circumstance of that. That they refuse to serve some customers due to the technology they use is either a business 
> > decision or a faulty design. The end-customer (gamer) doesn’t care. They just want to play.
>
> Sony know that when connectivity breaks because they marked a NAT444'ed
> IP address as a DDoS source, the end-user won't complain to Sony (that's
> a customer service blackhole). The end-user will complain to the ISP.
>
> Chain of responsibility is in the ISP's disfavour. Sony don't have to do
> anything. It's like sending an e-mail to an abuse@ mail box. You sort of
> know it won't get answered, and are powerless if it isn't answered.
>
> Mark.