Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by brokencode » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 10:02 PM UTC

ArchOversight wrote: post #30

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.

The ISP said they got only a limited set of IPv4 addresses, those are assigned to their CGNAT gateways. Which are expensive, especially for an Indian Reservation, not the deep pockets of some MSP. The users are behind CG-NAT. But instead of using IPv6 which is cheaper (no need to maintain CG-NAT, translation devices, or deal with traffic that is being routed way more expensively) the Roku devices are only streaming o…

Why does the IPv4 address need to be publicly exposed outside of a customer’s LAN? I thought you could set up NAT on a router to translate local IPv4 addresses to something IPv6 that is exposed publicly.

Is this simply bad planning from the ISP where they didn’t handle it correctly? Or is there something I’m not understanding about NAT?

I think in an ideal world all devices would be using IPv6. But I thought it would be common knowledge among network engineers that many devices still use IPv4, so you have to either handle it somehow or tell your customers that some of their devices simply won’t work.

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

#72

Post by betaby » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 10:02 PM UTC

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

Please leave the profession - you lack the required qualification.

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

#73

Post by op00to » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

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

IPv6 was enabled about 6 months ago in my area by my ISP. I noticed it was on about a week after they enabled it because I saw funny IPv6 networks I didn’t recognize in a log somewhere. I doubt this national ISP would turn on IPv6 like this without any notification if they were concerned it would cause “consumer pain and no consumer gain”. No pain here, and I’m hosting IPv6 only sites I can easily access from my mobile (with native IPv6) for fun.

Is it possible your ISP’s IPv6 network was problematic? I’m not sure how you can draw the conclusion that “IPv6 has been a failure” given evidence it’s live, in public, serving its purpose. The world has not exploded.

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

#74

Post by lockhouse » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

adamwk wrote: post #59

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)

I also think it’s appalling how much input lag there is with these devices. It’s 2023 and there’s seconds long delay between input and response with these things. I get they’re cheap but how much CPU is needed to move a cursor?

I’ve tried pretty much all of them except Apple TV, and I’d say Roku is the least laggy overall. Our FireTV devices became so laggy they were unusable. Android TV isn’t too bad, but Roku feels a bit more responsive to me.

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

#75

Post by Gigachad » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

mitchs wrote: post #42

toast0 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 /…

IP based bans have long been obsolete imo. These days a combination of google captcha tracking and phone number verification is mostly used. A few things like IRC and 4chan still do IP bans which is painfully obvious when you notice you are randomly banned depending on what CG-NAT handed you at the time.

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

#76

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

throw0101c wrote: post #27

colordrops wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are Rokus Linux based? I'd love to install an alternate distribution on one.

> Are Rokus Linux based? Even if it wasn't, don't most embedded OSes come with IPv6 support? How small do you have to be to not have it? QNX is pretty compact, and even it has it: * https://www.qnx.com/developers/docs/7.0.0/#com.qnx.doc.neutr...

LwIP is common on embedded devices. It has only supported dual stack in the last few years but even if it's possible, there are resource savings when only running v4.

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

#77

Post by zamadatix » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

hitpointdrew wrote: post #50

lmm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, o…

fe80::1 is your gateway, fe80::2 can be your switch, fe80::blah can be your server. Let the device automatically get it's temporary public address it uses when talking through fe80::1, you shouldn't really need to know it or use it. If you really do feel free to use DHCPv6 or a static SLAAC offset or mDNS but you're just making more work for yourself if it's a home environment.

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

#78

Post by bastardoperator » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

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.

Not going to lie, I just turn IPv6 off on my router because I don't fully understand it and because I pay a little extra for a block of 3 IPv4 addresses.

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

#79

Post by FridgeSeal » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

znpy wrote: post #35

The amount of idiocy and ignorance around ipv6 is crazy. I’ve seen many supposedly senior engineers that claimed they didn’t want to implement ipv6 because anyone could connect to hosts from “outside”. Nat has become so engraved in people’s thinking that they can’t even understand the actual role of a firewall anymore. We’re going to see many stories like this, where networking incompetence will start costing pretty…

> I’ve seen many supposedly senior engineers that claimed they didn’t want to implement ipv6 because anyone could connect to hosts from “outside”

I had this argument with the head of dev ops at my previous work. They claimed IPv6/dual stack networks were a security risk that couldn’t possibly be tolerated. The fact that they were going to be private sunsets, and would have a firewall, NACL’s, etc was lost on them.

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

#80

Post by zamadatix » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 10:04 PM UTC

brokencode wrote: post #71

ArchOversight wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ISP said they got only a limited set of IPv4 addresses, those are assigned to their CGNAT gateways. Which are expensive, especially for an Indian Reservation, not the deep pockets of some MSP. The users are behind CG-NAT. But instead of using IPv6 which is cheaper (no need to maintain CG-NAT, translation devices, or deal with traffic that is being routed way more expensively) the Roku devices are only streaming o…

Why does the IPv4 address need to be publicly exposed outside of a customer’s LAN? I thought you could set up NAT on a router to translate local IPv4 addresses to something IPv6 that is exposed publicly. Is this simply bad planning from the ISP where they didn’t handle it correctly? Or is there something I’m not understanding about NAT? I think in an ideal world all devices would be using IPv6. But I thought it would…

CG-NAT (NATing centrally at the ISP's internet edge) is cheaper/simpler than something like 464xlat (NATing v4 locally over v6) since you can do the former on 2 boxes instead of 20,000. That said the 2nd option is much cooler :).