My guess is that fixing that means fixing tons of games/apps. They are somehow
presuming that every user of the game has a different IP.
Note that we are talking only about PSN because it is probably the most
affected one, but I heard about other services with similar problems and
similar blockings.
I'm convinced that it will be cheaper and much easier to port to IPv6 those
games/apps and at the same time be a long-term solution.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 4/4/22, 14:03, "NANOG en nombre de Jared Brown"
<nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel...@nanog.org en nombre de
nanog-...@mail.com> escribió:
My apologies for expressing myself poorly.
What I meant to say is that this is primarily a problem caused by Sony and
the Sonys of the world. Less so a problem inherent to IPv4. A root cause fix
would address Sony's hostile behavior.
- Jared
Jordi Palet 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
El 30/3/22, 21:02, "NANOG en nombre de Jared Brown"
<nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es at nanog.org en nombre de nanog-isp
at mail.com> escribió:
Not to necessarily disagree with you, but that is more of a Sony
problem than an IPv4 problem.
- Jared
Jordi Palet wrote:
It is not a fixed one-time cost ... because if your users are gamers
behind PSP, Sony is blocking IPv4 ranges behind CGN. So, you keep rotating your
addresses until all then are blocked, then you need to transfer more IPv4
addresses ...
So under this perspective, in many cases it makes more sense to NOT
invest in CGN, and use that money to transfer up-front more IPv4 addresses at
once, you will get a better price than if you transfer them every few months.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30/3/22, 18:38, "NANOG en nombre de Jared Brown"
<nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es at nanog.org en nombre de nanog-isp
at mail.com> escribió:
Randy Carpenter wrote:
> >> >> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> >> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol
support
> >> >
> >> > Out of interest, how would this come about?
> >>
> >> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4
services.
> > Could you please be more specific about which costs you are
referring to?
> >
> > It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4
or IPv6 bits to
> > you.
>
> Have you priced blocks of IPv4 addresses lately?
IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing
$X/month cost.
- Jared
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
