Matthew, I was not complaining about the business model, or the need to comply with content provider requirements. The issue is the pathetic implementation choice that Netflix made when a trivial alternative was available. I agree that setting up rwhois and trusting the 3rd party tunnel providers to provide valid information is substantially more effort than the ROI on this would justify, but a redirect to IPv4-only requires no additional 3rd party trust for geo-loc than an IPv4 connection to begin with, would still catch the bad actors, yet works correctly for those trying to move the Internet forward.
Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew > Huff > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 12:45 PM > To: Laszlo Hanyecz; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: RE: Netflix banning HE tunnels > > The content providers wouldn't care if it was a very small number of people > evading their region restrictions, but it isn't a small number. Those avoiding > it are already not in good faith. While I don't agree with the content > providers business model, it's their content, their rules. > > If you don't think it's right that Netflix is blocking VPNs and tunnels, then > switch to Hulu and/or Amazon, however it's just matter of time before they > start blocking VPNs and tunnels themselves. > > I agree that matching Geolocation with source IP addresses is a bad idea, but > until someone comes up with a better idea and gets it implemented ( one > that can't be modified by the end user), people with a business model that > depends on it will continue to block based on IP. "Good faith" will be > laughed at, and rightly so. > > > > ---- > Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | > Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 > aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Laszlo > > Hanyecz > > Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 3:34 PM > > To: nanog@nanog.org > > Subject: Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels > > > > > > > > On 2016-06-08 18:57, Javier J wrote: > > > Tony, I agree 100% with you. Unfortunately I need ipv6 on my media > > subnet > > > because it's part of my lab. And now that my teenage daughter is > > > complaining about Netflix not working g on her Chromebook I'm > > starting to > > > think consumers should just start complaining to Netflix. Why should > > I have > > > to change my damn network to fix Netflix? > > > > > > In her eyes it's "daddy fix Netflix" but the heck with that. The man > > hours > > > of the consumers who are affected to work around this issue is less > > than > > > the man hours it would take for Netflix to redirect you with a 301 > > > to > > an > > > ipv4 only endpont. > > > > > > If Netflix needs help with this point me in the right direction. > > > I'll > > be > > > happy to fix it for them and send them a bill. > > > > > > > They're doing the same thing with IPv4 (banning people based on the > > apparent IP address). Your IPv4 numbers may not be on their blacklist > > at the moment, and disabling IPv6 might work for you, but the > > underlying problem is the practice of GeoIP/VPN blocking, and the > > HE.net tunnels are just one example of the collateral damage. > > > > I don't know why Netflix and other GeoIP users can't just ask > > customers where they are located, instead of telling them. It is > > possible that some user might lie, but what about "assume good faith"? > > It shows how much they value you as a customer if they would rather > > dump you than trust you to tell them where you are located. > > > > -Laszlo > >
