China Telecom Group issued directives to Guangdong Telecom requiring comprehensive rectification of cross-border dedicated-line (IEPL/跨境专线) services used for circumvention. Guangzhou launched enforcement first; other Guangdong cities were expected to follow, threatening widespread IEPL line interruptions for providers using Guangdong Telecom as their domestic ingress.

The April 2026 enforcement wave against Chinese VPN resellers operates primarily through administrative "reporting + line-cutting" (通报+拔线) mechanisms enforced via Ministry of Industry and Information Technology bulletins, not packet-level DPI changes. Operators report that newly acquired upstream resources are reported and cut with recovery periods described as "uncontrollable," and that upstream providers typically do not refund resellers after enforcement actions.

§一句话结论 / §这轮波动到底发生了什么 policy

China Telecom Group reportedly issued directives to Guangdong Telecom in April 2026 requiring comprehensive rectification of cross-border leased-line (IEPL/专线) businesses used for circumvention, with Guangzhou leading enforcement and other Guangdong cities expected to follow sequentially. The targeting is infrastructure-class-specific (IEPL lines as a category) rather than generalized protocol blocking.

§广东方向专项整治传闻的影响 policy

The dominant enforcement mechanism in April 2026 was administrative 'reporting + line-cutting' (通报 + 拔线) backed by MIIT bulletins, not protocol-level DPI changes. Operators reported that newly acquired upstream resources were reported to authorities quickly after acquisition, recovery timelines were uncontrollable, and some upstream providers refused refunds after enforcement actions, producing sustained capacity contraction across the shared VPN-reseller ecosystem.

§这轮波动到底发生了什么 deployment

Under April 2026 enforcement pressure, surviving VPN resellers converged on three strategies: raising prices to cover higher infrastructure costs, switching from transit to direct-connect (higher latency, worse peak-hour performance), or deploying proprietary protocols with dedicated clients — the last option breaking compatibility with standard Clash and Shadowrocket clients and fragmenting the interoperable ecosystem.

§5月以后机场可能怎么-活下去 deployment

Operators facing the April 2026 enforcement wave described three survival paths: (1) price increases to pass on resource costs, (2) switching entirely to direct-connect, or (3) deploying proprietary protocols with dedicated clients — making standard Clash/Shadowrocket clients non-functional for those providers. The commercial forecast is for low-price high-quality plans to disappear and for month-by-month billing to become the default as users hedge against provider collapse.

§5月以后机场可能怎么活下去 deployment

The April 2026 enforcement cycle created a resource-scarcity feedback loop: upstream providers cut lines with no obligation to refund resellers, newly acquired replacement resources can themselves be reported and cut within days, and stable-resource availability windows are described as "越来越短" (increasingly short) while costs rise concurrently. The overall effect is systemic capacity contraction forecast to continue through at least May 2026.

§这轮波动到底发生了什么 / §四月后的趋势判断 deployment

Shared domestic-entry transit architectures (国内入口 + 海外转发) suffered disproportionate impact because all nodes sharing a single domestic entry point went down simultaneously when that entry was reported and cut. Operators described configurations degrading from 'three-line redundancy to single entry,' eliminating failover capacity under enforcement pressure.

§为什么中转机场这次受冲击更明显 detection

Transit/relay architectures (国内入口 + 海外转发) suffered disproportionate impact because multiple nodes share a single domestic entry point: when that entry is reported or cut, the entire batch of nodes fails simultaneously. Operators described this as "三线变单线" (three-line to single-line collapse), with only direct-connect fallback remaining — at higher latency and with worse peak-hour performance.

§为什么中转机场这次受冲击更明显 evaluation

The June 2025 Iran shutdown—carried out during the Iran-Israel war beginning ~June 19—did not use BGP route withdrawals as in 2019. Instead, authorities applied service-level restrictions at the national border: DNS poisoning of foreign destinations, protocol whitelisting permitting only pre-approved domestic services, and DPI to block circumvention-tool traffic. Iran's international traffic fell roughly 90% while the country's BGP routes remained advertised, making the shutdown invisible to BGP-based monitoring systems. OONI measurement volume, which totalled 121,333 in June 2025, collapsed to under 200 submissions on June 19-20.

2025-iran-shutdown-measurement Executive Summary / §2 dpidns-poisoningport-blockingip-blocking

Chinese users treat full proxy/VPN (Shadowsocks, V2Ray/Clash, commercial VPNs) as the '终极大杀器' (ultimate solution) for bypassing GitHub DNS poisoning, implying that lighter-weight DNS-only fixes fail in some network environments where the censor adds firewall-layer blocking beyond DNS.

2026-anon-6-github-dns §3 使用代理或 VPN dns-poisoningip-blocking

Rule-based proxy tools (Clash, Shadowsocks, V2Ray) are documented as the most reliable solution for accessing GitHub from China, with split-tunneling rules routing only GitHub traffic through the proxy while keeping domestic traffic on the direct path. Git command-line tools require explicit proxy configuration (git config --global http.proxy http://127.0.0.1:7890) to route clone/push operations, as they do not inherit system proxy settings automatically.

2026-anon-github-2026-6-dns §方法二 dns-poisoningip-blocking

The GFW blocks GitHub via DNS poisoning across at least four domains — github.com, assets-cdn.github.com, github.global.ssl.fastly.net, and raw.githubusercontent.com — causing connection timeouts and page-load failures for mainland China users. The block is persistent as of February 2026, affecting both browser access and command-line git operations.

2026-anon-github-2026-6-dns Introduction / §方法一 dns-poisoningip-blocking

Article 19 documents that Iran's National Information Network (NIN / SHOMA) was designed with explicit reference to China's Great Firewall as a model, with institutional mirroring: Iran's Supreme Council of Cyberspace parallels China's Cyberspace Administration of China, and both governments share a "cyber sovereignty" doctrine used to justify domestic content controls and cross-border technology transfer. The report frames Iran's filtering infrastructure as deliberately architected to replicate GFW capabilities, not as an independently developed system.

2026-article19-tightening-the-net §2, §3 dpisni-blockingdns-poisoningip-blockingbgp-hijackthrottling

Article 19 documents that Iran combines technical filtering with formal coercion of major foreign platforms (including Telegram, Instagram, and WhatsApp) to comply with content removal orders under threat of full blocking. The report notes that Iran's 2022 Women Life Freedom protests accelerated platform blocking when foreign operators refused compliance, demonstrating that the censorship system operates in two modes: coerce-and-allow for compliant platforms, block for non-compliant ones. Domain fronting via these platforms is therefore subject to sudden revocation if political conditions change.

2026-article19-tightening-the-net §6 ip-blockingdns-poisoningthrottling