RE: Ipv6 help

["Tony Wicks" <tony () wicks co nz>]

</rant on>
This is nothing new, when I first started installing CGN platforms something like 10 years ago there was only ever one 
company that caused issues, can you guess which? It got to the point of lawyers exchanging desist letters as PSN 
constantly told our customers that they were blocking to contact us as somehow the ISP has control over what Sony 
blocks on PSN. They're the worst service company I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with, the arrogance and 
attitude of we are big, you are small we don't care about your customers was infuriating. Never have I seen a single 
call related to their opposition where as PSN accounted for about 10-20% of helpdesk calls. I don't understand why its 
seemingly impossible for them to implement ipv6 as almost everything I have deployed with CGN is dual stack V6.
</rant complete>


-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tony=wicks.co.nz () nanog org> On Behalf Of Brian Johnson
Sent: Thursday, 27 August 2020 7:14 am
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom com>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Ipv6 help

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.