What I don’t understand is why. Their OS is built on a linux kernel from at most a couple of years ago. I’m assuming the same goes for the libraries and the parts of the userland they didn’t make themselves. On any linux kernel not from the 90s it’s more effort not to support IPv6. Unless they rolled their own, which would be a tremendously stupid thing to do.
Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs
111–120 of 233 posts
Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs
#112I just bought a brand new motherboard that still has VGA and PS/2 ports, so I would guess IPv4 isn't going away any time soon. Old standards seem to hang around forever for legacy support. Why an ISP would assume they could set up an IPv6 only network is beyond me.
Unless it's a server motherboard, it most likely supports DisplayPort or HDMI, possibly even over Thunderbolt/USB-C? Legacy compatibility is not an issue (unless it makes things complicated, unreliable or limited in the name of backward compatibility). Lack of modern functionality is. Similarly, presence IPv4 support in devices is not a problem - lack of IPv6 support is. The comparable issue would be if you have boug…
This reminded me of an e300-8D I recently parted ways with. Bought new in 2017 but only had VGA out from the BMC... I gave away the VGA monitor I was using with it. Looking back I'm surprised I didn't just buy an active converter, it was such a pain to pull that monitor out :p.
Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs
#113Who 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…
Finally some sense. There are so many senseless IPv4 shills here. IPv6 always works, never had a problem with it.
Just switch to it alrready.
Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs
#114Earlier 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…
>Why would I want publically routable addresses
Hate to break it to you but that is how the internet was intended to work for end-users. Firewalls are cheap and easy to install :)
Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually you need a special box at the consumer side to do 464XLAT, it's not something you can just ask your customer's Netgear to do and it's usually more expensive if you want to provide it as the customer's rented router. CG-NAT however looks completely normal to all gear (other than the particular numbers assigned) except the 2 edge boxes. It's the ultimate cost saving kludge.
Most modern OSes (I know for a fact Android, iOS, and Windows) support automatically doing the 4->6 translation on their side (as a matter of fact, some cellular networks in the US are ipv6 only). I'm unsure if consumer routers would pass on the appropriate RA flag to tell the OS they need to do this in their default configuration however.
Well the devices that support 464xlat already support IPv6 by definition. CG-NAT/464XLAT+Client NAT at the gateway is for the devices like the Rokus that don't support IPv6 at all.
Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you need a DNS server? That's what mDNS is for.
Some people might have more than one subnet. Or road-warrior VPN and VPN-ing in. It is nice when your networks name resolution works, even if you are outside your network.
If you have multiple subnets, you almost certainly have an advanced enough router that it supports mDNS forwarding. There's no reason why it can't work across a VPN either.
Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most modern OSes (I know for a fact Android, iOS, and Windows) support automatically doing the 4->6 translation on their side (as a matter of fact, some cellular networks in the US are ipv6 only). I'm unsure if consumer routers would pass on the appropriate RA flag to tell the OS they need to do this in their default configuration however.
Well the devices that support 464xlat already support IPv6 by definition. CG-NAT/464XLAT+Client NAT at the gateway is for the devices like the Rokus that don't support IPv6 at all.
NAT64 doesn't work if the connection is made to a hardcoded IP(v4) address rather than DNS entry, and that's way more common than you'd think! Thus why 464XLAT and similar exist.
Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congratulations on completely failing to understand how CGNAT loads work & their costs, and jumping to a wildly incorrect understanding of the situation
Yeah, and that's currently the top comment. Which leads me to believe that the main barrier to IPV6 is just that people don't want to re-learn anything.
Speaking for myself, but my main barrier to IPv6 adoption is my ISP (Wave/Astound, Seattle eastside) still being IPv4-only, despite having DOCSIS3.1 service.
I didn’t think it was even possible to have DOCSUS3.1 without IPv6 :S
Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs
#119The 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…
It’s not just that ipv6 is publicly routable but rather the mistrust of ipv6 itself. There have been a multitude of remotely exploitable vulnerabilities with ipv6 many in embedded devices that are not getting patched.
Turn on ipv6 and all of these vulnerabilities are instantly exploitable. It’s not a matter of filtering as some of these vulnerabilities are in parts of the icmpv6 required for configuration. For an alarming example check out some of the rtos vulns back in 2020.
Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs
#120IPv6... Can it just go away already? Adoption has been declining for years. Many devices don't support it. Many services seemingly support it but break in strange ways. And not to mention it's a subtle and yet powerful privacy attack vector.
On what metric does this look like it's declining? https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
That graph also shows another interesting bit: it seems that IPv6 usage is higher on weekends — i.e. home internet connections. So it's even worse that Roku of all people doesn't support IPv6, considering IPv6 is ahead in homes.