M247 - Please Avoid

[Psamathe 2]

I notice that some of AirVPN infrastructure is in M247 facilities. Request is if use of M247 could be reduced (or no expansion or minimised).

I'm finding increasing issues when I'm running through M247 (Facebook, Cloudfare, even my own web site). And I can understand why from my own website experiences where I'm getting increasing attacks from M247 networks (not AirVPN) and M247 abuse@ seem to do nothing (so I'm not too inclined to get the blocks removed, though it does cause me grief on occasions).

So my request is if use of M247 could be reduced or kept to a minimum or whatever is possible (not expecting AirVPN to restructure their systems tomorrow but it is becoming an increasing problem).

Thanks

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

Could you try connecting with the other IP version (if v6, use v4 and vice versa)? I noticed a similar thing with some of the M247 DE servers, but only on IPv6. Connecting with v4 solved the packet loss issues where I had them.

[Psamathe 2]

2 minutes ago, giganerd said:

Could you try connecting with the other IP version (if v6, use v4 and vice versa)? I noticed a similar thing with some of the M247 DE servers, but only on IPv6. Connecting with v4 solved the packet loss issues where I had them.

I will try but, on one occasion when I was blocked from my own web site the VPN Server to my web site was IP4 (I checked the Lightspeed Web Server logs and the block was on the IP4 address) - does one have any control over VPN Server to web site connection/addressing? (I tried Eddie in relation to other issues and it didn't help and was worse in other regards than my normal OpenVPN client Viscosity).

I fully accept that some sites will always block VPNs (e.g. WikMedia projects for editing - hoping OpenVPM will soon permit configuring IP6 addresses to not route through VPN). But more recently it's been increasing on e.g. Facebook, Google, Cloudfare. Facebook and Google keep wanting their Capcha clicking on photos thing, other sites it's just a straight block.

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

9 minutes ago, Psamathe said:

I will try but, on one occasion when I was blocked from my own web site the VPN Server to my web site was IP4 (I checked the Lightspeed Web Server logs and the block was on the IP4 address)

Even if you connect with v6, v4 is always preferred on the exit, even if v6 is supported by both the exit and the destination. I tested other providers in the past and it was always the case with OpenVPN. It's sad, really, not fully supporting a 25-year old protocol.

[arteryshelby 25]

I tried to convince staff multiple times that AS diversity is a good thing (and also what you mentioned that M247 is known for bad network activities --> blocks) but it seems like Air doesnt see it as a risk to have that ammount of traffic by M247.

Many countries in EU are M247 only:
- CZ
- AT
- BE
- NO
- ES
- RO
- BG
- RS

I have to admit that they have a good network and im getting good speeds from them but i dont like the fact that so many countries rely on M247 _only_.

[Psamathe 2]

I can appreciate why M247 are being increasingly blocked. I reported 12 attacks on my web site to them today (ones that got through M247 existing blocks by web server); and my website is a pretty feeble personal blog on shared hosting. And my reporting attacks from M247 goes back ages and nothing seems to ever improve or get stopped - hence I can appreciate them being increasingly blocked and they are now seem on a par with Digital Ocean.

[Psamathe 2]

These M247 blocks are becoming a real nuisance now. At the point I'd be asking AirVPN to start dropping existing servers on M247 infrastructure (or start finding their service will be getting bad reviews).

No point in having a VPN if you keep having to disconnect to do stuff because of blocks thanks to the poor reputation of one infrastructure provider chosen by AirVPN.

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

Out of curiosity: Did you try the other protocol and did it improve anything?

[Psamathe 2]

12 hours ago, giganerd said:

Out of curiosity: Did you try the other protocol and did it improve anything?

(For reference of others, from a different thread) I did and it didn't make any difference - though not had time to work out how to collect logs and switched back to Viscosity client.

These M247 blocks are different as I get explicit "Your IP is blocked" from the web site (or 403 or equivalent - i.e. I've reached the site OK but request rejected, then check my IP and the ASN comes up M247).

[Flx 76]

6 hours ago, Psamathe said:

These M247 blocks are different as I get explicit "Your IP is blocked" from the web site

Can you please post up some of the websites where you get this "Your IP is blocked"?
Other than Facebook, Google or Cloudflare

[arteryshelby 25]

On 8/8/2020 at 3:03 AM, Flx said:

Other than Facebook, Google or Cloudflare

Well, cloudflare is hosting so many sites, a block there feels like 30% of the internet..

 

[Staff 9972]

Hello!

We host about 29% of our infrastructure in M247 owned datacenters, approximately the same amount we had in 2019, 2018 and 2017. Cloudflare does not block M247 (although the settings can change during time). So you have the remaining 71% of AirVPN servers not on M247.

On the Internet, without counting hidden services etc., you have 1.5 billion web sites. Cloudflare provides services to about 13 millions of them, i.e. 0.8% of all the known Internet web sites. However, Cloudflare provides services to more than 12% web sites of the top 10M (estimated amount of visitors). In general, stay away from services that don't accept access from VPN services or Tor or I2P, for obvious reasons.

We have no plans to increase our presence in M247, as we showed you in the last 4 years (the latest, slight 1% increase is due to cancellation of Hong Kong servers, none of them were with M247).

Kind regards