Re: V6 still not supported

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

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 () 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 () isc org