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

81–90 of 233 posts

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

#81

Post by ownagefool »

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…

The main reason would be to do p2p without hacks / servers.

Why are you so militant against the idea?

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

#82

Post by yamtaddle »

phpisthebest wrote: post #66
znpy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Sorry I do not trust the likes of home router vendors to implement a linux firewall correctly While people may say "NAT is Not security", it is in fact a layer (ahd huge one) in the security onion, that ipV6 is likely going to increase drastically the amount of ransomware and other malware on the public internet simply because that NAT layer is gone

I remember what it was like when lots more home computers were routable from the public Internet, because having a NAT router between them and there wasn't a nearly-100%-adoption thing yet. In fact, I worked at an ISP (dial-up and DSL) in that era.

It was indeed a shit-show. Adding a NATting router to those set-ups instantly increased their security tremendously. Sure you could use a proper firewall, but the router w/NAT Just Works.

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

#83

Post by dools »

yamtaddle wrote: post #48
dimgl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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

It doesn’t. The only apple product I’m pushed to use is iCloud on my phone and computer which is quite aggressive because it’s a notification you can’t disable .

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

#84

Post by totallyunknown »

I have reviewed the logs for our video CDN and out of 150,000 sessions, only 48 were identified to be using IPv6. These sessions were identified by the user-agent Roku/DVP-12.0 (12.0.0.xxxx-xx), indicating that the recent update to the operating system now supports IPv6.

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

#85

Post by slaymaker1907 »

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

There is a cost there though as mentioned in the forum post. The ISP in question is using CGNAT, but they need more IPv4 addresses even with CGNAT to support higher loads. CGNAT only reduces the number of IPv4 addresses required, it does not eliminate the scaling.

However, I do think IPv4 is honestly pretty good for local or even WAN networking for organizations. You're unlikely to ever hit limits in the reserved blocks and it's much easier to read and work with IPv4 addresses. Maybe we need easier configs to block IPv6 except for external addresses?

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

#86

Post by ArchOversight »

zamadatix wrote: post #80
brokencode wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :).

464XLAT still requires IPv4 boxes on the edge to translate IPv6 traffic back to IPv4. Whether that is two boxes or 20,000, the same is true for other CG-NAT solutions. Someone somewhere is bearing the cost of translating.

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

#87

Post by phpisthebest »

yamtaddle wrote: post #82
phpisthebest wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I do not trust the likes of home router vendors to implement a linux firewall correctly While people may say "NAT is Not security", it is in fact a layer (ahd huge one) in the security onion, that ipV6 is likely going to increase drastically the amount of ransomware and other malware on the public internet simply because that NAT layer is gone

I remember what it was like when lots more home computers were routable from the public Internet, because having a NAT router between them and there wasn't a nearly-100%-adoption thing yet. In fact, I worked at an ISP (dial-up and DSL) in that era. It was indeed a shit-show. Adding a NATting router to those set-ups instantly increased their security tremendously. Sure you could use a proper firewall, but the router w…

I cant wait until all the printers, and webcams all showup on the public internet again....

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

#88

Post by lmm »

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.

> Yes, but let's not pretend that IPv6 was just IPv4 with a larger addr size. A lot of other unnecessary cruft got changed.

Mostly removed (e.g. removing fragmentation). If you're making an incompatible protocol, might as well take the chance to remove the cruft.

> Add an extra octet to IPv4, call it IPv5. Done.

Have fun debugging nondeterministic routing loops lol.

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

#89

Post by tpmx »

bonsaibilly wrote: post #60
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.

Congratulations on completely failing to understand how CGNAT loads work & their costs, and jumping to a wildly incorrect understanding of the situation

Prediction: CGNAT processing costs for gigabit subscribers will become neglible in the medium term (3-5 years). Not that it's wildly expensive today...

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

#90

Post by Symbiote »

zamadatix wrote: post #64
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…

Realistically they are already running a large scale NAT device anyways, otherwise the v6 only clients wouldn't be able to reach v4 only internet services (hello HN server), and if they had planned to CG-NAT from the start it probably could have all been done on the same pair of internet edge routers for much less than 300k additional expense.

As the article says, the Roku traffic is the overwhelming majority of that ipv4 traffic.

HN and similar mostly-text websites would barely show up on the statistics.

Post reply on HN