On Jun 25, 2020, at 8:38 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:
On 25/Jun/20 16:45, Christian wrote:
wow. blaming support for IPv6 rather than using cgnat is a huge stretch of credibility
I have no idea what's going through Netflix's mind - it's all, as my American friend would say, conjecturbation on my part.
CG-NAT isn't new, and if Netflix are still not able to consider it a "fixed issue", there is probably a reason why that is.
Ultimately, reaching out to them and asking their position on the matter seems like a path to an answer.
Mark.
I can’t speak for Netflix, but the reality is that there’s really no good way to “fix” CGNAT other than migrating to IPv6 and eliminating it. CGNAT by its nature combines multiple subscribers behind a single address. When you make subscribers indistinguishable to the content provider, then any subscriber in the group committing abuse is likely to get all the subscribers in the group cut off. There’s no good way around that. Expecting content providers to maintain some sort of record of every eyeball provider’s CGNAT port mapping policy in order to do more granular filtering simply does not scale. So I don’t know how (or even if) Netflix will answer, but were I in their shoes, I’d probably answer as follows: “IPv4 is a technology which has been extended well past its ability to provide a good user experience. CGNAT, while it allows providers to try and extend the lifetime of IPv4 ultimately provides an increasingly degraded user experience. We fully support IPv6. Deploying IPv6 support is the best path to providing an improved user experience on Netflix vs. CGNAT and IPv4.” Seriously, if you were Netflix, what would be the point of putting serious investment into attempts to solve what will become an increasingly intractable problem when you already have a clear solution that scales and requires relatively easy and inherently necessary upgrades by the eyeball ISP that you’ve already completed on your side? Owen