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

131–140 of 233 posts

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

#131

Post by tristanbvk »

wvenable wrote: post #63
dmitrygr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the IPv6 changes are actually good, right? IPv4 was designed for an entirely different world and IPv6 was designed for this world. You're only going to get one chance to make these kind of improvements.

IPv6 has link-local, v4 doesn't. That is a huge configuration win.

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

#132

Post by hugoromano »

The recent Netflix password-sharing cracking may create some Roku victims.

The other day, I reviewed the devices logging into my account, all inside my house. However, there was one caveat: two Apple TVs in IPv6 and one Roku in IPV4, with different ASNs, showing as two separate networks 900 km apart. I didn’t receive any Netflix notice so far.

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

#133

Post by zamadatix »

frankreyes wrote: post #126

There's no ipv4 nat for IPv6?

There is but it'd require a special device at each customer location. CG-NAT (a.k.a. double NAT) is probably what they did because it only requires a couple of centralized boxes then the rest is deployed like a normal dual stack network and your average home Netgear router works with it out of the box.

NAT in the other direction (i.e. IPv6 local client, IPv4 remote host) is easier, and I'd be very surprised if they didn't already have that given the number of v4 only sites, but doesn't really help the v4 only devices.

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

#134

Post by dpkirchner »

outworlder wrote: post #95
bonsaibilly wrote: post #60

Earlier 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.

I think the main barrier is that for most people IPv4 works just fine and they've never experienced a problem that IPv6 would solve. Maybe they will, some day, like if Facebook and Google shut down their IPv4 IPs.

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

#135

Post by tpmx »

michh wrote: post #111

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.

Perhaps they have a limited development team and chose to focus on matters that bring in the most dough and/or make their average customer the happiest.

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

#136

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #85
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 blo…

> I do think IPv4 is honestly pretty good for local or even WAN networking for organizations

Strong disagree here: I sometimes do work which involves VPNing-in to SMB company on-prem networks from within other SMB’s on-prem networks, so they’re all invariably using 192.168.x.x or 172.16.x.x whuch means they all conflict with each other when you want to use LAN resources at the same time you’re VPN-ing to another network.

My hope is that IPv6 will mean point-to-site and site-to-site VPNs will die-off and we’ll be able to connect all hosts directly to other hosts (IPSec Transport Mode) - but then I’m reminded that configuring an IPv6 firewall for IPSec is conceptually much harder than setting up OpenVPN - and SMBs don’t have much in the way of people who even know what IPSec is, ugh.

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

#137

Post by toast0 »

Gigachad wrote: post #68
ArchOversight wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may not reduce the need for IPv4, but it will reduce the need for costly CG-NAT devices and capacity for IPv4 when the streaming can happen over IPv6 which does not require the costly CG-NAT devices.

Wonder if ISPs will just let their CG-NAT get overloaded and if you want to send a v4 packet you just have to wait for your time slice on the hardware.

I've seen that. Too many connections, so the idle timeout is now ten seconds. And, as per usual middlebox NAT, no packets sent when closing an idle connection, and no response to packets sent on 'unknown' connections.

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

#138

Post by zamadatix »

ArchOversight wrote: post #56
winstonprivacy wrote: post #45

IPv6... 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.

> Adoption has been declining for years. Source? > Many devices don't support it. Source? > Many services seemingly support it but break in strange ways. Got any examples? > And not to mention it's a subtle and yet powerful privacy attack vector. This is the only statement you've made that has any merit, and even then very little. Privacy Addresses have been a thing for a while, and most OS's support it. No longer ar…

Taking some points from their side not because I necessarily agree with the conclusion but just because this comment comes off a little strong:

Adoption hasn't been declining by any measure but the adoption rate isn't as high as it was 5 years ago. Of course eventually the rate has to slow down because there is less and less to change over so that doesn't mean much. Overall though adoption has continued to increase without any long term dips.

Many devices don't support it is probably one I consider true though. It's getting way better as the years go on but it's fair to say the world isn't past IPv4 only devices in households by any measure. Typically embedded products are the worst. Home security stuff, point of sale gear, older or just crappy media devices, oddly some IoT type devices like a fridge. Plenty of gear also supports it but just very poorly. Of those that do not all understand NAT64 either so while they may support IPv6 but they don't necessarily work without IPv4 (this also getting better as more services move to supporting IPv6 too).

SIP and WebSocket are examples of some protocols that can break services under NAT64, especially with so much of the web being v4 only. They should be fine if the world ever moves 100% to IPv6 though. The era of misconfigured AAAA records wreaking havoc thankfully seems to have come to an end.

I don't have anything to add on the privacy discussion, I think you nailed it there.

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

#139

Post by frankreyes »

zamadatix wrote: post #133
frankreyes wrote: post #126

There's no ipv4 nat for IPv6?

There is but it'd require a special device at each customer location. CG-NAT (a.k.a. double NAT) is probably what they did because it only requires a couple of centralized boxes then the rest is deployed like a normal dual stack network and your average home Netgear router works with it out of the box. NAT in the other direction (i.e. IPv6 local client, IPv4 remote host) is easier, and I'd be very surprised if they d…

Sorry flop the numbers. I meant public V6, private V4 nat.
Post reply on HN