Mailing List Archive

On 6/26/20 3:21 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Hi Grant,

Hi,

> Philosophically, Netflix agrees with you.

My interactions with and observations of Netflix make me want to
disagree with you.

> Unfortunately they have to keep the studios happy or many of their
> content contracts evaporate.

I fail to see how me watching a video at my address on file, which
matches my CC's address on file, which matches the GeoIP region for my
IPv4 address becomes invalidated because I'm using IPv6.

There is nothing to stop Netflix from probing a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6
during the same video playing session. Thus they could correlate the
IPv6 with the IPv4 which correlates with my CC which correlates with my
address on file.

I firmly believe that Netflix /could/ solve IPv6 playback, even through
VPN, if they wanted to. I completely believe that Netflix is capable of
solving this. I also completely believe that Netflix doesn't give a
REDACTED and chooses to ignore this problem.

Instead, they choose to foist the problem onto other parties. Or pass
the blame.

> And too many content owners care very much where you are right this
> instant.

Nope. I disagree.

I can just as easily extend my IPv4 address through a VPN as I can an
IPv6 address. -- Performance may suffer, but that's a different issue.

I can use my home's IPv4 address, which is GeoIP located to the same
area as my home which matches my CC billing address, can be used
anywhere in the world.

So ... if I can use my IPv4 address outside of where Netflix thinks that
I am at, why is my IPv6 address any different?

I completely believe that there are technical solutions to this problem.
I also completely agree that Netflix is choosing to ignore them.

> Because they are unreasonable luddites who think that geographic
> monopolies make good business sense.

As stated above, where the Luddites, or Netflix as their agent, thinks
my IP is located is actually divorced from where I am really watching
from. Or at least can be.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/26/20 1:42 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> Hi,

Hi,

> This is the part that matters the most. I'm sure they're willing.

Let's agree to disagree on Netflix's willingness.

> I'm also sure that in the past, enough people have abused their
> trust.

I question the veracity of that statement.

> Since they are legally obliged to adhere to their licensing agreements,
> they have no choice but to implement technical precautions to enforce
> those agreements ...

I agree to that part of your statement. What's more is I have no
objection to it. I even support it.

> ... to the best of their abilities.

This is where I have a problem.

I highly doubt the agreements that Netflix's has with content owners
state that Hurricane Electric (et al.) must be blocked. Maybe I'm
wrong. It wouldn't be the first time today.

I believe that Netflix is choosing the lower / easier road and simply
blocking Hurricane Electric's IPv6 tunnels as an easy / low hanging
fruit option to achieve the contractual requirements.

I do not believe that we are seeing the best of Netflix's abilities to
filter content. To be more blunt, I believe that Netflix is capable and
can do better than they are doing now.

Amazon does better.
YouTube does better.
CBS does better.
Hulu does better.

Where better is working with my Hurricane Electric IPv6 tunnel and not
forcing me to DNS filtering of AAAA records for their domains,
independent DNSSEC.

I can only speculate that Netflix doesn't care. As such, they /choose/
this road through inaction on their part.

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

This side effect is like forgetting about your hurt knee after hitting
your thumb with a hammer, on purpose.

> 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.

Without seeing actual licenses to support "you must block Hurricane
Electric", I'm going to choose to disagree with the license scapegoat.

I believe that Netflix is capable of doing better if they wanted to. I
can only surmise that they don't want to.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 26/Jun/20 19:25, Gary E. Miller wrote:

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

Possibly, but I was merely referring to a compatible device.

Actual ability to get IPv6 transport toward Netflix is an entirely
different matter.

Mark.

On 26/Jun/20 15:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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?

That would be my reading of the situation, if I were Netflix.

While we don't know their true on-the-record position, for sure, I doubt
we'd be far-fetched in assuming this to be case.

Mark.

On 26/Jun/20 19:40, Sabri Berisha wrote:

> 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.

I'm hoping a new device will bring with it renewed vigour :-).

I'm probably being ambitious. Overly.


> 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 :)

I'd be down with that. Gamers will kill for even 1 nanosecond of lower
"ping" :-).

Which is quite at odds with a flats screen TV I bought from Sony back in
2015 that supported IPv6 - and this was Sony's own OS, not a 3rd party
one some of their current units ship with. The good ol' silo problem,
perhaps...

Mark.

----- On Jun 26, 2020, at 3:39 PM, nanog nanog@nanog.org wrote:

> On 6/26/20 1:42 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote:

>> I'm also sure that in the past, enough people have abused their
>> trust.
>
> I question the veracity of that statement.

I for one, have been guilty of that. Using VPN when I was traveling
abroad to access the series I was following.

>> ... to the best of their abilities.

> I highly doubt the agreements that Netflix's has with content owners
> state that Hurricane Electric (et al.) must be blocked. Maybe I'm
> wrong. It wouldn't be the first time today.

> I believe that Netflix is choosing the lower / easier road and simply
> blocking Hurricane Electric's IPv6 tunnels as an easy / low hanging
> fruit option to achieve the contractual requirements.

In order to enforce geographical content restrictions, the origin of
a request must be determined. If that origin is a known tunneling
address, you are unable to determine the true geographical position
of that particular client. In that case, it is impossible for Netflix
to determine that the viewer is in a location authorized to view the
content.

Since they know that HE's IPv6 broker range is most likely being
tunneled, and they know that there is no way to accurately determine
the true origin of the client, the must prevent it from accessing the
content. It's not like HE can insert an X-Origin-GEOIP: x.x.x.x or
something.

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

> Without seeing actual licenses to support "you must block Hurricane
> Electric", I'm going to choose to disagree with the license scapegoat.

We'll never be privvy to those license agreements. All we'll know is
that they'll most likely include geographical restrictions.

Thanks,

Sabri

On 26/Jun/20 20:08, Brandon Jackson via NANOG wrote:

>
> 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.

Unless I misunderstand it, there is a good chunk of Netflix original
content that should not be subject to region blocking.

I could be wrong.

Mark.

On 26/Jun/20 20:15, colin johnston wrote:

> 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

Do you have more information on this testing?

Mark.

> 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.

think of the burden on the netflix customer support of HE's IPv6
tunnels.

randy

On 28/Jun/20 19:37, Randy Bush wrote:

> think of the burden on the netflix customer support of HE's IPv6
> tunnels.

I wasn't aware about the HE situation and Netflix. I just learned about
this via this thread.

I understand why they are blocking those tunnels.

Mark.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:21:47 +0200, Mark Tinka said:
> 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.

The PS/4 will in fact dhcpv6 at startup, and it will answer pings from both on
subnet and from elsewhere, and will properly hand you an RST when there's
nobody listening on a TCP port, and a port unreachable for a UDP port. So it's
very much a "lights are on but nobody's home" because nothing is using an IPv6
port.

One big reason that PS4 doesn't use IPv6 is that although the OS supports it,
the developer toolkit doesn't have that API in it, so no games or apps can use
it without an incredible amount of pain and suffering. It wouldn't help games
that want to talk to Playstation Network until Sony got *that* part working,
but if the API was there at least things like the Netflix and Hulu and similar
apps could use it....

> On Jun 26, 2020, at 12:32 , Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

Yes, but it doesn’t matter where you live… It matters where you are watching at the moment.

When I travel internationally, I guarantee you I get an entirely different Netflix experience than when I am at home. That’s what content creators what for reasons passing understanding.

They want control over where you can view their content, not who can view it.

> 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.

Not that simple. Your phone, iPad, and Laptop aren’t reliably at your service address. No guarantee that the desktop or television you are using is at your service address, either.

> 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?

Because you might not actually be in the licensing region containing your service address at the time.

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

That’s only going to prove where you live, not where you are at the time of viewing.

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

You can. But what if you’re not at the associated address? I can use an HE tunnel terminated and numbered in Los Angeles from Brazil or Moscow or Tokyo or…

I can even use the same tunnel from all of those locations.

Personally I think all this geofencing is stupid, wasteful, and yet another example of just how truly broken the whole concept of DRM is. I’m not defending it, but I can at least
(Hopefully) explain the argument that is driving this.

> 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.

Not really… You can still use an HE tunnel as a VPN to get around geofencing of content so long as your HE tunnel address isn’t blocked.

> 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.

That’s unfortunate and needs to be reported more widely in hopes of getting this situation resolved.

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

No, really, it is… It’s awful, but unless you want even less streaming content available on Netflix, it’s the reality inflicted by the content producers.

The good news is that Netflix (at least so far) isn’t playing these stupid games with their own content and they’ve been bringing some darn good stuff under their label.

Tragically, the IPv6 tunnel blocking seems to have been implemented as an all or nothing. Personally, I think Netflix should offer geo-unrestricted content to IPv6 tunnel users and note that the other content is unavailable because tunnel locations are unreliable.

That should placate the studio jack holes responsible for this mess while still allowing studios that don’t play these stupid games a better foothold with IPv6 tunnel users.

Personally, I’d like to see the Netflix UI upgraded so that you could have the option of indexing all content (whether you could view it or not) and each time you clicked on something you weren’t allowed to view, it provided contact information for the responsible party setting the restriction. Unfortunately, I suspect that the majority of users wouldn’t enjoy this opportunity for commercial activism, so I understand why Netflix doesn’t do this.

>> I don't really blame Netflix for this,
>
> I do.

Your blame is misplaced to some extent. I agree there are things Netflix could do better here (see above), but in general, the root cause of this is stupid restrictions placed on content by the producers.

>> 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”?

Pretty much.

Netflix use to treat tunnels as local to their registered region and the studios came at them hard claiming that was inadequate. After multiple attempts at addressing the problem lightly, it turns out that it’s virtually impossible for Netflix to distinguish between a tunnel in Los Angeles that emerges on a router/host in Tokyo from one that emerges on a host in San Diego.

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

They really aren’t. I watched this evolve over time and Netflix really did try the lightest touches they could at first and for several rounds. The studios really pinned them to the wall and any address which doesn’t have pretty reliable deterministic geolocation is going to get flagged.

Again, there are things I think Netflix could do (e.g. not completely disabling Netflix, but just removing all the geofenced content from the UI with an explanation of why), but again, that’s a complicated thing to try and explain to the average end user and it’s likely Netflix would lose that battle on both active fronts… The content producers that got implicated and incurred additional wrath from users would take it out on Netflix for identifying them and the users would probably still be pissed at Netflix even if they understood what happened.


>> 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.

I can’t disagree with this, but it really isn’t as simple as you imply.

Owen

> There is nothing to stop Netflix from probing a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 during the same video playing session. Thus they could correlate the IPv6 with the IPv4 which correlates with my CC which correlates with my address on file.

This only works in environments that have both IPv4 and IPv6. Further, with CGN, your IPv4 address visible to Netflix is likely to represent an ever increasing geographic area in the coming years.

They aren’t blocking all IPv6, just certain things like HE tunnels. If your provider implements native IPv6, you shouldn’t have any issues.

If you _REALLY_ want a workaround for IPv6 over an HE tunnel, it is doable… If you get a /48 from ARIN (dirt simple to do and currently $150/year with a $500 initial cost IIRC) and set up a BGP tunnel with HE, you’ll be all set. Those seem to pass muster for Netflix Geolocation because the addresses don’t look like a tunnel to them. This does require you to have at least one public dedicated IPv4 address from your ISP, but that’s true for any HE tunnel, so if you get stuck behind CGN, your other HE tunnel options will evaporate as well.

> I firmly believe that Netflix /could/ solve IPv6 playback, even through VPN, if they wanted to. I completely believe that Netflix is capable of solving this. I also completely believe that Netflix doesn't give a REDACTED and chooses to ignore this problem.

OK.. Assume the following:

1. Some users want to violate geofencing.
2. HE tunnel endpoints are easily updated (this is a fact more than an assumption)
3. It’s quite simple to use the same tunnel registered in a particular location in a variety of countries on several continents.
(I haven’t don this for Netflix, but I have done it for IPv6 training purposes, I have a portable IPv6 classroom
which uses an HE tunnel for the IPv6 routing. It uses a single IPv4 address at the site where the class is being
taught and works the rest out either through NAT (IPv4) or HE Tunnel (IPv6).)

How, from the Netflix side of the equation, do you determine where the tunnel actually terminates? Not where it’s registered, but
where it actually terminates.

How do you do this with sufficient reliability that studios who have lots of money to try the same tricks can’t easily produce enough
proof that it’s easy to circumvent and you are in breech of contract and subject to significant penalties?

> Instead, they choose to foist the problem onto other parties. Or pass the blame.

Again, the solutions you think easily solve this really aren’t viable. You’re looking from the very narrow perspective of your situation. The problem is that everyone with an HE tunnel isn’t in your situation and there’s no reliable way for Netflix to tell them apart.

>> And too many content owners care very much where you are right this
>> instant.
>
> Nope. I disagree.

Oh, trust me, content owners are ape about this shit. They really do care.

> I can just as easily extend my IPv4 address through a VPN as I can an IPv6 address. -- Performance may suffer, but that's a different issue.

Yes, but when you extend your IPv4 address through a VPN, that’s nearly impossible for them to detect.

OTOH, if you use an address known to be associated with one of the many IPv4 VPN services out there, it’s not unlikely for them to block that too.

> I can use my home's IPv4 address, which is GeoIP located to the same area as my home which matches my CC billing address, can be used anywhere in the world.

Again, it comes down to detection. First, it actually requires some sophistication to do what you’re suggesting. Not a lot, but some. It takes almost nothing to do an HE tunnel.
In fact, several portable routers will do HE tunnels semi-automatically through the HE API.

If the studios could figure out a way to block what you’re suggesting, believe me, they’d foist that on to Netflix as well.

OTOH, it’s easy to detect an HE addressed HE tunnel and those have a relatively low fraction of legitimate users compared to the numbers intent on circumventing geofencing.

> So ... if I can use my IPv4 address outside of where Netflix thinks that I am at, why is my IPv6 address any different?

Because they don’t have a way to KNOW about your IPv4 address mobility. They can’t easily detect it.

OTOH, your HE tunnel IPv6 address is easily detected.

> I completely believe that there are technical solutions to this problem. I also completely agree that Netflix is choosing to ignore them.

OK… Explain one that you think is feasible across the entire spectrum of Netflix’s user base that will keep the studios off their case.

>> Because they are unreasonable luddites who think that geographic monopolies make good business sense.
>
> As stated above, where the Luddites, or Netflix as their agent, thinks my IP is located is actually divorced from where I am really watching from. Or at least can be.

Yes… However, when you divorce them, you’re actually violating your contract with Netflix. In the case of the HE tunnel, it’s easy for them to detect that you’re using a
tunnel which is a popular method for enacting such a divorce, so they shut those down.

When you extend your IPv4 address through a VPN on the back side of your router, that’s much harder (nearly impossible) for them to reliably detect.

It turns out it’s also nearly impossible for them to detect MIP6 when I’m using that, so if I really cared to violate geofencing, I could probably do it with that tool.

It’s a numbers game.

HE tunnels represent a small perceived fraction of legitimate users and a high perceived fraction of geofencing violators. Logical action: Block them.

IPv4 extensions via backside VPN are rare among Netflix users. Not saying they don’t happen, but they’re a very small fraction of Netflix IPv4 users and
they're very hard to reliably detect. Thus blocking them is harder and higher risk vs. leaving them alone.


Owen

>
> I'd be down with that. Gamers will kill for even 1 nanosecond of lower
> "ping" :-).
>

Which has long made me chuckle. It's analogous to the golfers buying things
to "fix your slice!" or "get 10 more yards!" , when the true reason those
things happen is completely your swing. :)

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 9:19 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 26/Jun/20 19:40, Sabri Berisha wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm hoping a new device will bring with it renewed vigour :-).
>
> I'm probably being ambitious. Overly.
>
>
> > 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 :)
>
> I'd be down with that. Gamers will kill for even 1 nanosecond of lower
> "ping" :-).
>
> Which is quite at odds with a flats screen TV I bought from Sony back in
> 2015 that supported IPv6 - and this was Sony's own OS, not a 3rd party
> one some of their current units ship with. The good ol' silo problem,
> perhaps...
>
> Mark.
>

On 27/Jun/20 00:39, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:

>  
>
> Amazon does better.
> YouTube does better.
> CBS does better.
> Hulu does better.

I wouldn't immediately compare all of those services to Netflix (or even
to each other), especially in a global context... but then this thread
could get totally derailed :-).

Mark.

On 29/Jun/20 07:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Personally, I’d like to see the Netflix UI upgraded so that you could have the option of indexing all content (whether you could view it or not) and each time you clicked on something you weren’t allowed to view, it provided contact information for the responsible party setting the restriction. Unfortunately, I suspect that the majority of users wouldn’t enjoy this opportunity for commercial activism, so I understand why Netflix doesn’t do this.

Amazon (sort of) do this, which is why I cancelled their Video service
here in Johannesburg. It will show you what's in the library, but when
you play it, it will tell you that it's not available for your region.
If they could add the "commercial activism" button, I'd be okay to lose
5 seconds pressing it.

There are too many moving parts for Netflix to reliably build code that
could determine that an HE tunnel is coming from the right place content
owners mandate their media be distributed to. That code would end up
getting unwieldy, taking up too much time and becoming a full-time job.

Since Netflix are sinking more and more cash into their own content
every year, to me, that seems like a better long-term solution.

Mark.