I take his statement more as: “If Netflix wasn’t doing IPv6, they’d be in more of a corner to resolve CGNAT issues. Since they support IPv6, likely their response to CGNAT issues is ``Press your provider to do IPv6, it’s better.’’” Likely, that is true. Support for IPv6 isn’t at fault here. Rather, the reality that IPv6 is a relatively easy way to offer a much better user experience than CGNAT is in play here. Owen
On Jun 25, 2020, at 7:45 AM, Christian <cdel@firsthand.net> wrote:
wow. blaming support for IPv6 rather than using cgnat is a huge stretch of credibility
On 25/06/2020 10:20, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 25/Jun/20 11:08, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
Did anybody noticed that Netflix just became useless due to tons of proxy/unblocker false detection on CGNAT ranges? Even my home network is dual stack, i am absolutely sure there is no proxy/vpn/whatsoever (but ipv4 part is over CGNAT) - and i got "proxy/unblocker" message on my personal TV. And many other ISP sysadmins told me that recently this is a massive problem, and netflix support is frankly inadequate and does not want to solve the problem. I will not be surprised that they will begin to actively lose users due to such a shameful silly screwed up algorithm. Who in sober mind blocks all legit users due probably one or two suspicious users behind same IP range? This isn't a new problem - for years, services that track what a single IP address does can deny access if something looks amiss.
Of course, CG-NAT is a reality, but perhaps Netflix find it will be easier to lose some customers than building infrastructure and support to work out what is valid CG-NAT vs. mischief.
Probably would have been an easier case if Netflix didn't support IPv6, but alas...
Mark.
-- Christian de Larrinaga ----------------------