Re: V6 still not supported

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>]

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.

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