I don't think this can happen if I'm right and the reason they need to block
"shared" IPs is because the games/apps just don't work.
If I'm a gamer, and one of my possible ISPs is using CGN, and from time to time
stops working, and another ISP is providing me a public and/or static IPv4
address, always working, and there is not too much price difference, what I
will do?
And of course, as I just said in my previous email, the trend is only supported
by transitioning to IPv6. Sony has been a lagger on that, instead XBOX had IPv6
support quite early and developers where properly trained to use it.
(note that I'm not a gamer, neither have any game console at home, actually
never used one!, so I've no preference or any business relation with any game
related company ... just commenting what I can see)
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 4/4/22, 14:06, "Joe Maimon" <jmai...@jmaimon.com> escribió:
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
**********************************************
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.
