Mailing List Archive

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.

Try the contact information on this page to resolve it:


http://thebrotherswisp.com/index.php/geo-and-vpn/




-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

----- Original Message -----

From: "Denys Fedoryshchenko" <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 4:08:34 AM
Subject: netflix proxy/unblocker false detection

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?

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
----------------------

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.

Actually it's a good thing that Netflix does support IPv6 for this. As any
device using Netflix via IPv6 from your ISP would likely correctly be
protected as not a VPN or proxy.

The problem is the ISPs that deploy CGNAT without also deploying IPv6 is
ridiculous. They are directly affected by the death of IPv4 yet will not
deploy IPv6, to me that is unacceptable.

Unfortunately as well you have devices such as Roku who still refuse to
support IPv6 at all, so even if said ISP deployed IPv6 at least users using
Roku would still be in the same boat.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 11:43 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.
>

If you or others are not receiving a satisfactory reply from us (Netflix)
on this issue, please feel free to reach out directly and I'll make sure it
gets handled.

So far as we know, we handle CGNAT (and IPv6) appropriately. Sometimes
ranges get reassigned and the data that we have gets stale - this happens
quite often since formal runout, and so sometimes we're behind the ball on
it, but be assured that we take this seriously.

Thanks,
-Dave

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:42 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.
>

On 2020-06-25 19:20, Dave Temkin via NANOG wrote:
> If you or others are not receiving a satisfactory reply from us
> (Netflix) on this issue, please feel free to reach out directly and
> I'll make sure it gets handled.
>
> So far as we know, we handle CGNAT (and IPv6) appropriately. Sometimes
> ranges get reassigned and the data that we have gets stale - this
> happens quite often since formal runout, and so sometimes we're behind
> the ball on it, but be assured that we take this seriously.
>
> Thanks,
> -Dave
>
This problem has been bothering operators in Lebanon for more than a
month, and frankly they have not received any reasonable answers yet.
IP's are the same for several years, no changes, but all of sudden users
start to get reduced list of titles (only netflix originals) and popup
messages.
Maybe some of the clients are doing something bad, but in fact its not
right to block legitimate clients with them because they are behind same
CGNAT IP, I know for sure that I am using an absolutely normal account
of the highest plan, on my absolutely ordinary Smart TV for last year,
without any changes, i am in the same IP pool, but yet i have problem.
And if someone doing something bad, we(ISP) can assist and if there is
enough info, we move such people to different IP pool or if there is
clear proof of wrongdoing we can even disconnect such clients. But we
are getting nothing at all from support, except template "we are working
hard on your problem", which is kind of disrespectful and enough.

Today I tried it myself as a client, and as result it was 4 hour
standoff in live chat, as support tried to feed me usual "we are working
hard on your problem" and as i didnt accepted usual script/templates
anymore, it turned into outright mockery on me, sending me literally
same message template again and again, until i realised that i was
wasting my time with reasoning.
At the end, i received an answer that temporarily ok for me, but i hope
the problem will be resolved properly soon, if it reached the right
person, due my polite persistence.*
At least today we got new contact, email for geosupport, and i have some
hope that it will be more helpful, at least 3 ISP representatives mailed
them.
And i know for sure that i'm not going to give up until i find proper
solution.

*Which cost me and my cat a lot of stress today.
(I couldn’t feed the cat because of the live chat timeouts, and he just
keep meowing under the table demanding food).

IPv6?




-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

----- Original Message -----

From: "Denys Fedoryshchenko" <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com>
To: "Dave Temkin" <dave@temk.in>
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:44:43 PM
Subject: Re: netflix proxy/unblocker false detection

On 2020-06-25 19:20, Dave Temkin via NANOG wrote:
> If you or others are not receiving a satisfactory reply from us
> (Netflix) on this issue, please feel free to reach out directly and
> I'll make sure it gets handled.
>
> So far as we know, we handle CGNAT (and IPv6) appropriately. Sometimes
> ranges get reassigned and the data that we have gets stale - this
> happens quite often since formal runout, and so sometimes we're behind
> the ball on it, but be assured that we take this seriously.
>
> Thanks,
> -Dave
>
This problem has been bothering operators in Lebanon for more than a
month, and frankly they have not received any reasonable answers yet.
IP's are the same for several years, no changes, but all of sudden users
start to get reduced list of titles (only netflix originals) and popup
messages.
Maybe some of the clients are doing something bad, but in fact its not
right to block legitimate clients with them because they are behind same
CGNAT IP, I know for sure that I am using an absolutely normal account
of the highest plan, on my absolutely ordinary Smart TV for last year,
without any changes, i am in the same IP pool, but yet i have problem.
And if someone doing something bad, we(ISP) can assist and if there is
enough info, we move such people to different IP pool or if there is
clear proof of wrongdoing we can even disconnect such clients. But we
are getting nothing at all from support, except template "we are working
hard on your problem", which is kind of disrespectful and enough.

Today I tried it myself as a client, and as result it was 4 hour
standoff in live chat, as support tried to feed me usual "we are working
hard on your problem" and as i didnt accepted usual script/templates
anymore, it turned into outright mockery on me, sending me literally
same message template again and again, until i realised that i was
wasting my time with reasoning.
At the end, i received an answer that temporarily ok for me, but i hope
the problem will be resolved properly soon, if it reached the right
person, due my polite persistence.*
At least today we got new contact, email for geosupport, and i have some
hope that it will be more helpful, at least 3 ISP representatives mailed
them.
And i know for sure that i'm not going to give up until i find proper
solution.

*Which cost me and my cat a lot of stress today.
(I couldn’t feed the cat because of the live chat timeouts, and he just
keep meowing under the table demanding food).

On 2020-06-26 01:32, Mike Hammett wrote:
> IPv6?
>
> -----

By some reason my smart TV doesn't use IPv6 for Netflix, even everything
else in same network using it properly (even developed for ESP8266/ESP32
- IPv6 enabled apps).

And what is worse:
"Netflix Kimberly
The Network settings is to check if it is in Automatic not specifically
to search for VPN and Proxy in that area, but that is okay. Then please
remember that IPv6 is not allowed and should be disabled. With all these
done, please contact your Internet Service provider to get further
clarification on this matter. I will send you an email with some other
information to consult with XXXX. Please give me a moment to send it to
you"

Honestly, this is very confusing suggestion from Netflix support (i have
native ipv6!).
Looking to
https://www.reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/evv7r8/ipv6_and_netflix/ there is
definitely some issues for other users too.

And final nail, local providers with OCA who does peering - don't
provide IPv6 peering at all, and ISP i am using is too small to be
qualified for OCA. Since bandwidth is very expensive here, it is no-go
to push ipv6 and cutting off themself from cheaper(than "international
capacity") OCA peering.
Still, i tried, in browser it seems worked, but anyway i'm not going to
watch movies on my desktop, while i have 4k screen, and also there is
tons of users who don't have IPv6 enabled routers (they just buy
cheapest brand).

On 25/Jun/20 18:08, Brandon Jackson via NANOG wrote:

> Actually it's a good thing that Netflix does support IPv6 for this. As
> any device using Netflix via IPv6 from your ISP would likely correctly
> be protected as not a VPN or proxy.
>
> The problem is the ISPs that deploy CGNAT without also deploying IPv6
> is ridiculous. They are directly affected by the death of IPv4 yet
> will not deploy IPv6, to me that is unacceptable.
>
> Unfortunately as well you have devices such as Roku who still refuse
> to support IPv6 at all, so even if said ISP deployed IPv6 at least
> users using Roku would still be in the same boat.

If you don't use some kind of device to connect to Netflix, if you have
a reasonably modern TV that supports a native Netflix app as well as
IPv6, you'd be good to go.

Sadly, PlayStation still don't support IPv6. Hopefully, it comes with
the PS5, although I see no reason why the PS4 and PS3 can't.

Mark.

On 26/Jun/20 03:12, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:

>  
>
> Honestly, this is very confusing suggestion from Netflix support (i
> have native ipv6!).
> Looking to
> https://www.reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/evv7r8/ipv6_and_netflix/ there
> is definitely some issues for other users too.

This seems to suggest Netflix detect for an block IPv6 transported over
a 6-in-4 tunnel.

Is this what you have?

Can't say I've ever heard of this issue. Interesting...

Mark.

On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 17:32 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> IPv6?

I realize this list is for network operators, but as a user, when your
ISP doesn't provide IPv6, this is not possible. Even with
tunnelbrokers like HE as they are blocked at Netflix. I have to put
rules in my firewall to force the clients in my network to use the non-
HE addresses.

Cheers,
b.

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
> ----------------------

> 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

Yo Mark!

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:21:47 +0200
Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

> If you don't use some kind of device to connect to Netflix, if you
> have a reasonably modern TV that supports a native Netflix app as
> well as IPv6, you'd be good to go.

Nope. Netflix blocks a lot of IPv6. Their blocking of HE has been
discussed here many times.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
gem@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588

Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
"If you can't measure it, you can't improve it." - Lord Kelvin

----- On Jun 26, 2020, at 1:21 AM, Mark Tinka mark.tinka@seacom.com wrote:

Hi,

> Sadly, PlayStation still don't support IPv6. Hopefully, it comes with
> the PS5,

Don't hold your breath. It's most likely not related to the capabilities
of the hardware, or even the kernel running on the platform.

> although I see no reason why the PS4 and PS3 can't.

My guess is that there is no IPv6 support because the backend doesn't
support it. I've seen this at previous employers where the network was ready
for IPv6, but back-end applications were lagging. And that might require
development on a lot of games as well.

Perhaps we should start a rumor: "IPv6 has a lower ping!". We'll get
thousands of gamers protesting for v6 in front of Sony's HQ :)

Thanks,

Sabri

I believe they're only blocking the HE v6 prefixes used for the VPN service.




-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary E. Miller" <gem@rellim.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 12:25:07 PM
Subject: Re: netflix proxy/unblocker false detection

Yo Mark!

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:21:47 +0200
Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

> If you don't use some kind of device to connect to Netflix, if you
> have a reasonably modern TV that supports a native Netflix app as
> well as IPv6, you'd be good to go.

Nope. Netflix blocks a lot of IPv6. Their blocking of HE has been
discussed here many times.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
gem@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588

Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
"If you can't measure it, you can't improve it." - Lord Kelvin

Correct they block HE.net's tunnel broker IP's because they practically are
at least for the sense of geo restrictions "VPN" that can be used to get
around said geo restriction.

As much as I hate it as I use said tunnel service it is understandable and
I don't really blame Netflix for this, I blame the content producer/owners
and the industry as a whole for mandating such restrictive practices.

Using that as an argument against Netflix for bad labeling of IP blocks at
least in terms of IPv6 is not fair.


On Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 13:47 Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

> I believe they're only blocking the HE v6 prefixes used for the VPN
> service.
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Gary E. Miller" <gem@rellim.com>
> *To: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Friday, June 26, 2020 12:25:07 PM
> *Subject: *Re: netflix proxy/unblocker false detection
>
> Yo Mark!
>
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:21:47 +0200
> Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:
>
> > If you don't use some kind of device to connect to Netflix, if you
> > have a reasonably modern TV that supports a native Netflix app as
> > well as IPv6, you'd be good to go.
>
> Nope. Netflix blocks a lot of IPv6. Their blocking of HE has been
> discussed here many times.
>
> RGDS
> GARY
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
> gem@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588
>
> Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
> "If you can't measure it, you can't improve it." - Lord Kelvin
>
>

On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 12:45 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I believe they're only blocking the HE v6 prefixes used for the VPN
> service.

I don't use any VPN service of HE but I still get errors from Netflix
when my client chooses my HE tunnel prefix as it's source.

Or I guess I should say I was, the last time I tried and have since
rejected Netflix's IPv6 hosts when the source address is the HE tunnel,
so force clients to choose a different source address.

Cheers,
b.

> On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 12:45 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> I believe they're only blocking the HE v6 prefixes used for the VPN
>> service.
>

I don’t understand the rational to block specific ipv6 ranges, for example the UK ipv6 ranges and Africa ipv6 ranges are not blocked from testing done here with satellite comms and fibre backhaul uk comms

Col

Media licensing is a complicated topic and the source of all of these problems.




-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

----- Original Message -----

From: "colin johnston" <colinj@gt86car.org.uk>
To: "Brian J. Murrell" <brian@interlinx.bc.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 1:15:24 PM
Subject: Re: netflix proxy/unblocker false detection

> On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 12:45 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> I believe they're only blocking the HE v6 prefixes used for the VPN
>> service.
>

I don’t understand the rational to block specific ipv6 ranges, for example the UK ipv6 ranges and Africa ipv6 ranges are not blocked from testing done here with satellite comms and fibre backhaul uk comms

Col

On 6/26/20 12:08 PM, Brandon Jackson via NANOG wrote:
> Correct they block HE.net's tunnel broker IP's because they practically
> are at least for the sense of geo restrictions "VPN" that can be used to
> get around said geo restriction.

I want to agree, but I can't. Move up the stack. I pay my bill with a
CC which has my billing address. I would even be willing to tell
Netflix my home address directly.

If they are willing to trust the CC information to take my money, then
they should also be willing to trust the information for my service address.

If I want to use my Hurricane Electric IPv6 tunnel, to watch content
that matches my stated address which matches my CC billing address,
which matches my IPv4 address (region), then why the REDACTED can't I do
so over my HE IPv6 tunnel?

I would even be willing to go through a physical snail mail confirmation
loop. I'll even pay a nominal fee to do so.

I want to watch content available in my region while I'm at the
associated address. Why can't I?

I think that blindly blocking Hurricane Electric IPv6 tunnels "because
they can be used as a VPN" is an old way of thinking and completely
fails to take other parts of the stack into account.

Netflix's blocking of HE IPv6 tunnels is preventing many people in the
U.S.A. that have a non-IPv6-ISP from being able to use IPv6. I've even
heard of people actively not using IPv6 because of Netflix.

> As much as I hate it as I use said tunnel service it is understandable

I disagree.

> I don't really blame Netflix for this,

I do.

> I blame the content producer/owners and the industry as a whole for
> mandating such restrictive practices.

Are the content producers / owners mandating "Block Hurricane Electric
IPv6 tunnels" or are they mandating "Block playback to people that are
outside of the playback region"?

My opinion is that Netflix is taking the low road as an easy way out
while trying to shift blame to someone else.

> Using that as an argument against Netflix for bad labeling of IP blocks
> at least in terms of IPv6 is not fair.

I completely believe that Netflix could do a LOT better than they are
doing now.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

----- On Jun 26, 2020, at 12:32 PM, nanog nanog@nanog.org wrote:

Hi,

> they should also be willing to trust the information for my service address.

This is the part that matters the most. I'm sure they're willing. I'm also
sure that in the past, enough people have abused their trust. Since they are
legally obliged to adhere to their licensing agreements, they have no choice
but to implement technical precautions to enforce those agreements to the
best of their abilities.

False positives (meaning, people being denied while being in-region), are going
to be an unwelcome side-effect.

In the end, I must agree with Mike Hammett when he said:

> Media licensing is a complicated topic and the source of all of these problems.

Thanks,

Sabri

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:34 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
> I want to agree, but I can't. Move up the stack. I pay my bill with a
> CC which has my billing address. I would even be willing to tell
> Netflix my home address directly.
>
> If they are willing to trust the CC information to take my money, then
> they should also be willing to trust the information for my service address.
>
> If I want to use my Hurricane Electric IPv6 tunnel, to watch content
> that matches my stated address which matches my CC billing address,
> which matches my IPv4 address (region), then why the REDACTED can't I do
> so over my HE IPv6 tunnel?

Hi Grant,

Philosophically, Netflix agrees with you. Unfortunately they have to
keep the studios happy or many of their content contracts evaporate.
And too many content owners care very much where you are right this
instant. Because they are unreasonable luddites who think that
geographic monopolies make good business sense.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin
bill@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/