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 <c...@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 > ----------------------