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

141–150 of 233 posts

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

#141

Post by merbanan »

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

MAP-T/MAP-E moves the CG-NAT functionality to the CPE. 60x users per IPv4 address should be doable.

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

#142

Post by CoolGuySteve »

outworlder wrote: post #107
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And now you need all routers in your path to support it. Effectively creating two incompatible networks and achieving a worse result.

Routers already support the Options field, it's part of IPv4. The old RFCs mentioned are specifically designed so only routers at the edge need to support them.

You should try reading the specs before making technical claims instead of completely missing the point of why those RFCs were created in the first place.

Instead we have to rehash an argument from 30 years ago.

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

#143

Post by slackdog »

tristanbvk wrote: post #113
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…

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.

I'll switch when IPv4 stops working. Until then, I have no reason to switch.

> It's costing ISPs

I hate my ISP so this is actually a feature. If they add an IPv4 surcharge to my bill then I'll reconsider.

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

#144

Post by zamadatix »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #117
zamadatix wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Absolutely but CG-NAT would be NAT444 (i.e. double NAT to dual stack) not NAT64. I mean they probably did try NAT64 based on the description of the botched 1st attempt but CG-NAT would have negated the need for NAT64 in the first place. Putting a x464 CLAT that can gateway/NAT the local network everywhere would definitely achieve the same functional goal though, just more ISP devices.

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

#145

Post by michh »

tpmx wrote: post #135
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.

then they would have supported ipv6 because it’s less effort not to strip it out of the open source software they’ve based their platform on

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

#146

Post by toast0 »

outworlder wrote: post #99
Awelton wrote: post #40

I 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.

Not sure why we are comparing hardware with software here. Your motherboard can run IPv6 just fine :) You probably bought a server motherboard, so the ports are there for old KVM-type devices. Good luck buying a consumer motherboard with VGA and PS/2 ports.

https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/B450-A-PRO-MAX

Here you go. It's a little older, but AM4 is still competitive, especially if you're using video from the CPU. In which case, the lack of a 500 series chipset isn't a big limitation.

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

#147

Post by digitalsushi »

JohnFen wrote: post #70
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.

There remains the problem that we've run out of IPv4 addresses. I agree that IPv6 was not the ideal solution to this, but it's the only solution we have.

I'm going to ask this and it's going to sound accusatory but I insist it's innocent: what is a more ideal solution than what we have?

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

#148

Post by Narkov »

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.

This is a position of privilege. The developing world would like access to the Internet and lack access to the (mostly) exhausted IPv4 space. Should we not work to make Internet access ubiquitous?

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

#149

Post by at_a_remove »

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #94
totallyunknown wrote: post #84

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.

I wonder if it's just a bunch of old and outdated Roku boxes causing problems? They probably work off of a ~3-5 year support cycle like phones but are updated even more infrequently by endusers (why should they if it's still working for them?).

I have a Roku 3 (these came out in 2013) which I regularly update. The support cycle is fairly long. I think they did stop supporting some Roku 2s at one point due to a new feature the old hardware just couldn't support.

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

#150

Post by toast0 »

lmm wrote: post #88
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.

> 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.

Fragmentation is mostly removed on IPv4 as well. Almost everything sends DF, and there's very little legitimate fragmented traffic. You can just drop fragments wherever convenient. If you want to be nice, it's a good idea to have a small reassembly buffer, but if it's too much work, just drop them.

It's beyond too late to change anything, but I imagine if IPv6 had started with a sensible rollout plan and worked backward from there, it would look somewhat different and it would have taken a lot less time to take hold.

Post reply on HN