There are other problematic examples out there for CGN as well… For example, Philips Hue assumes that if you are presenting the same public IP to the internet, you must be in the same household.
Yes, this means that an opportunistic neighbor behind the same CGNAT address as you can gain control of your lighting products if you are not careful and they time their attack right. Owen > On Apr 4, 2022, at 06:03 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: > > 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. > > >
