IVPN - Gradual removal of port forwarding from the IVPN service

[cccthats3cs 9]

https://www.ivpn.net/blog/gradual-removal-of-port-forwarding/
 

Quote

Port forwarding enables activities, such as large scale abuse and sharing of objectionable materials that can have a negative effect on our servers and operations. While the majority of customers are not using the feature for such purposes, actions of a few can have undesirable consequences affecting the whole VPN network.

Since recent similar changes in the policies of another popular VPN service provider, we have seen a significant influx of new customers, and the risks posed by such activities have grown manyfold. A considerable increase in law enforcement inquiries and erosion of relationship with data centers could threaten our ability to keep serving our customers.

We have no insights into how any one specific customer uses IVPN, and that needs to stay that way. After careful deliberation, we have found no other way to avoid further negative outcomes, but to gradually remove the port forwarding feature from service. We expect this move will result in more favourable load and bandwidth conditions on our end points. These changes should enable a better customer experience for our subscribers going forward.

[ss11 15]

AirVPN stands up and strong.
There are many of us who cannot use AirVPN without the port forwarding feature (like myself). If there aren't too many abusers, if users would just use port forwarding to use normal p2p protocols like all of us, there won't be any problem. I hope at least it will be available on per "addon payment" basis, where an abuse on a certain port would nuke out the service with no refund, thus making abuse a closed avenue, if you have to pay for every abuse.

[fishbasketballaries 16]

Quote

A considerable increase in law enforcement inquiries and erosion of relationship with data centers could threaten our ability to keep serving our customers.

I'm curious to know how large of an increase in legal inquiries they've received since their influx of new users. Their Transparency Report hasn't been updated since March 21.
 

Quote

We have no insights into how any one specific customer uses IVPN, and that needs to stay that way.

Yes they do. They can absolutely check to see what account has reserved a certain port.
If a VPN provider receives a legitimate law enforcement notice about abuse occurring involving an open port, and the VPN provider can verify that abuse is indeed occurring, then I think it's completely acceptable to remove the offending customer from the service. Why don't they do that instead of removing the feature for everyone?

I am a little worried that they mention "erosion of relationship with data centers". I see from IVPN's status page they share some of the same data centers as AirVPN. If, say, M247 or Amanah comes along and pulls a Cherry Servers move, then I can understand how restricting port forwarding would be a more attractive option for AirVPN than withdrawing such a huge portion of their infrastructure like they did back then in Lithuania.

[cccthats3cs 9]

6 minutes ago, fishbasketballaries said:

I'm curious to know how large of an increase in legal inquiries they've received since their influx of new users.

I read their post to be speculative: "a considerable increase in law enforcement inquiries... could threaten our ability to keep serving our customers" where the operative word is "could" in reference to possible future events, not new abuse within the past month.
 

9 minutes ago, fishbasketballaries said:

If a VPN provider receives a legitimate law enforcement notice about abuse occurring involving an open port, and the VPN provider can verify that abuse is indeed occurring, then I think it's completely acceptable to remove the offending customer from the service. Why don't they do that instead of removing the feature for everyone?

I am absolutely in agreement with this and would rather a VPN provider go this route - because while data is not logged, they can still tie it to an anonymous account - and thus terminate that account with no refund. In my mind that would make it cost prohibitive to hide abuse behind port forwarding if accounts got suspended with any regularity.