Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

community.roku.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 233 posts

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#41

Post by znpy »

lmm wrote: post #31
hitpointdrew wrote: post #15

Who the hell is giving their Roku a public IP? How is this remotely a problem? This is 100% not the fault of Roku, and 100% the fault of the ISP. The ISP should have an IPv6 to IPv4 gateway built into their modem/router. You have a WAN port that is IPv6 and an LAN port that IPv4. IPv6 for local networks, makes no sense is completely unnecessary, and is a hill I will die on. IPv4 is here to stay.

> IPv6 for local networks, makes no sense is completely unnecessary, and is a hill I will die on. IPv4 is here to stay. Why would you make everything gratuitously complicated by having two separate forms of addressing? All that IPv4 gains you is new and exciting ways to mess up your networking. Just give every device a normal public address (of course you probably want to firewall off inbound traffic from the WAN to…

> you probably want to firewall off inbound traffic from the WAN to the LAN

But all modem/routers are doing it anyway, they might as well do that on ipv6.

Effectively all router appliances (at home and soho level) are linux appliances, and the firewall is built into the kernel (and in use anyway).

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#42

Post by mitchs »

toast0 wrote: post #19
Syonyk wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wonder why don’t support it. It's probably harder to tie devices in a single household together with IPv6 than with IPv4, or so they think. They don't make (much) money on their devices, they make money on selling data collected and aggregated by their devices. Their "privacy" policy [0] is a hoot to read. "Whatever we can do, we will. If the laws of the country we collected the data in would interfere with that, w…

> It's probably harder to tie devices in a single household together with IPv6 than with IPv4, or so they think. It's probably easier, in fact. A significant and growing number of households are behind CGNAT on IPv4 and not have a 1:1 household : ip address relationship. On the other hand, if they're on IPv6, they're most likely on the same /64. But, Roku's not doing IPv6 was handy for me when Netflix decided not to…

The big issue with v6 is you don't know what every ISP is doing with their IP space. The current RIPE recommendation is to delegate somewhere between a /48 to a /56 to every customer. Some ISPs might only delegate a 64, and perhaps typical home wifi setup may only use a single /64. For data aggregation maybe the error is ok, but I've wondered about what IP banning/filtering looks like for v6. Assume everyone gets a /64 and most cats will have 256 lives, and sometimes 16384. Assume everyone has anything larger than a 64, and you may block 255+ other people with the intended target.

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#43

Post by CoolGuySteve »

dragonwriter wrote: post #10
dmitrygr wrote: post #4

My #1 step in troubleshooting any network issues is to disable IPv6. Step #2 is so rarely needed that I no longer remember what it was. IPv6 has been a failure, it is about time we openly admitted it. Why? Simple - it causes consumer pain and no consumer gain

You can’t just change the size of an IPv4 address without creating a whole new thing.

You can though, there is an options field in IPv4 that could have been made to hold extended address values.

It was used as part of the Extended Internet Protocol: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1385

And the Address Extension protocol aka IPv7: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1475

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#44

Post by baq »

silisili wrote: post #32
dmitrygr wrote: post #4

My #1 step in troubleshooting any network issues is to disable IPv6. Step #2 is so rarely needed that I no longer remember what it was. IPv6 has been a failure, it is about time we openly admitted it. Why? Simple - it causes consumer pain and no consumer gain

I feel similarly, but what is the solution? IPv4 blocks are all but impossible to get anymore, there's a waiting list at ARIN that doesn't really ever move. The company I was working at signed up 3 or 4 years ago for a /24 and never heard back to this day. Sure you can rent/buy them on the open market, but that's only going to last so long, and eventually puts anyone without FAANG money out of the running...

Regulation. Incentivize ipv6, tax ipv4 only devices, mandate ipv6 in government networks.

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#46

Post by thesnide »

dmitrygr wrote: post #17
dragonwriter wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t just change the size of an IPv4 address without creating a whole new thing.

Yes, but let's not pretend that IPv6 was just IPv4 with a larger addr size. A lot of other unnecessary cruft got changed. That is kinda the issue. Add an extra octet to IPv4, call it IPv5. Done. DHCP (as is) can already handle variable-length addresses so it'll work unmodified for 5-byte addrs, for example. Same for ARP.

I am wondering if we could hack the ipip tunnel to automagically handle a bigger address space.

Much akin to your idea but mostly supported already

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#47

Post by dijit »

hitpointdrew wrote: post #15

Who the hell is giving their Roku a public IP? How is this remotely a problem? This is 100% not the fault of Roku, and 100% the fault of the ISP. The ISP should have an IPv6 to IPv4 gateway built into their modem/router. You have a WAN port that is IPv6 and an LAN port that IPv4. IPv6 for local networks, makes no sense is completely unnecessary, and is a hill I will die on. IPv4 is here to stay.

link local ipv6 can be deterministic (no more shuffling IPs around!) and no more silly dhcp services running on anaemic hardware.

Ditto for NAT, where devices can reach v6 endpoints (though stateful firewalls should stick around!).

Honestly, I really hate change. but ipv6 does have some upsides and rather than complicate things, embracing actually simplifies things.

The issue is that we have a lot of sunk cost on how we bolt on shit to ipv4 to make it passable in the modern day, and we begrudge having to relearn what we think is solved.

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#48

Post by yamtaddle »

dimgl wrote: post #39
luhn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's par for the course nowadays, unfortunately. I couldn't name a smart TV system that doesn't have ads. Roku is far from being the worst offender, my LG C2 that I paid out the nose for has the majority of the home screen taken up with ads.

> I couldn't name a smart TV system that doesn't have ads. What do you consider to be ads? Apple TV is pretty tasteful in this regard. It never feels like I’m getting served an ad at all. In fact, with all Apple products I never feel like I’m getting served an ad.

I feel the same way about tvOS, but I've not used it without being subscribed to Apple TV, so I don't know if it pushes that hard if you don't have it. Otherwise the default screen has their service's stuff mixed in with other services (if they support that—some don't, like IIRC Netflix) and the amount of promotion isn't worse than if you're in another streaming app and they're trying to show you shows you're already paying for, that they want you to watch—and the actual app menu has none of that, no ads at all.

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#49

Post by Scubabear68 »

luhn wrote: post #25
ehPReth wrote: post #9

I really hate Roku as a product, ads on the home screen and the remote(??) of something I paid for? No thanks. Though, I will concede it is cool to load mostly "unapproved" apps if the developer shares the app ID. (Certain x-rated sites liked to advertise they have a Roku app, something that would never make its way to most other TV boxes)

That's par for the course nowadays, unfortunately. I couldn't name a smart TV system that doesn't have ads. Roku is far from being the worst offender, my LG C2 that I paid out the nose for has the majority of the home screen taken up with ads.

Apple TV doesn’t have ads.

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#50

Post by hitpointdrew »

lmm wrote: post #31
hitpointdrew wrote: post #15

Who the hell is giving their Roku a public IP? How is this remotely a problem? This is 100% not the fault of Roku, and 100% the fault of the ISP. The ISP should have an IPv6 to IPv4 gateway built into their modem/router. You have a WAN port that is IPv6 and an LAN port that IPv4. IPv6 for local networks, makes no sense is completely unnecessary, and is a hill I will die on. IPv4 is here to stay.

> IPv6 for local networks, makes no sense is completely unnecessary, and is a hill I will die on. IPv4 is here to stay. Why would you make everything gratuitously complicated by having two separate forms of addressing? All that IPv4 gains you is new and exciting ways to mess up your networking. Just give every device a normal public address (of course you probably want to firewall off inbound traffic from the WAN to…

Why would I want any of my devices on my network to have a publicly route-able address?

> Why would you make everything gratuitously complicated by having two separate forms of addressing?

How is IPv6 itself not "gratuitously complicated". You think I am going to remember the IP of my firewall, my network switch, if it is that mess of characters that is an IPv6 address? I can easily recall 10.10.10.1 is my gateway, or that 192.168.1.1 is my gateway. You think instead setting up local DNS server and domain so I can do myrouter.lan is somehow "less complicated"?

Hard pass.

Post reply on HN