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
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@nanog.org en nombre de nanog-isp@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.
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
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" <jmaimon@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.
On Apr 4, 2022, at 05:06 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:
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.
$ISP_1 refuses to accommodate Sony’s shenanigans… Three possible outcomes: 1. $ISP_1 has competition. Customer blames $ISP_1 for network problem and customer to competitor that does. 2. $ISP_1 has no competition. Customer blames $ISP_1 and keeps making expensive support calls to $ISP_1 making $ISP_1 wish customer would bother (nonexistent) competitor. 3. $ISP_1 has competition. Competition also refuses to accommodate Sony’s shenanigans. Whichever $ISP customer is using this week continues to get support calls complaining about network issue. Sony continues to tell customer problem is with $ISP. $ISP continues to tell customer problem is with Sony. Lather, rinse, repeat. All of this, of course, becomes an effective non-issue if both $ISP and Sony deploy IPv6 and get rid of the stupid NAT tricks. Owen
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
participants (4)
-
Jared Brown -
Joe Maimon -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Owen DeLong