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

151–160 of 233 posts

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

#151

Post by slackdog »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #130
ehPReth wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> via selling user’s television watching behavior Gross. I hate how commonplace this is becoming. Even your basic non-Roku-OS TV people are saying never to connect it to the internet as it'll just fingerprint stuff on your HDMI and tell advertisers you're watching Game of Thrones

I used to think like that, then I realised that my life is not actually being made worse because of it. The TV doesn’t know who I am, personally (I’m not signed-in to any accounts) and it’s all just mass aggregate data that will probably end-up being ignored by network-execs so why worry?

I'm not worried about some specific risk coming from Roku itself. But Roku contributes to the normalization of surveillance capitalism which I think is fundamentally corrosive to a free and democratic society. Having such a business model makes Roku a willful part of the problem, so I want nothing to do with them.

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

#152

Post by 1ncorrect »

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.

Hills sparsely populated with corpses are equally fascinating and comical.

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

#153

Post by [deleted] »

michh wrote: post #145
tpmx wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

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

#154

Post by bonsaibilly »

tpmx wrote: post #89
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

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

You are literally posting this comment on a story about CGNAT processing costs being wildly more expensive than a small ISP cares to deal with. To the point where they’re willing to buy and distribute AppleTVs to reduce costs.

Even if that price decreases in real terms, washing a whole bunch of traffic through a big-ass NAT is always going to cost more than just not doing that.

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

#155

Post by pixl97 »

JohnFen wrote: post #57
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 you make everything gratuitously complicated by having two separate forms of addressing? If it ain't broke, don't fix it? If IPv6 brings no benefit to my LAN, why should I spend all the effort needed to shift it to IPv6? I can just make the connection to the internet IPv6 and leave everything else alone. Although I have additional friction in my case, in that I have numerous devices that are IPv4-only. So…

Because that's not the way TCP was designed in the first place. Instead you're used to hack on top of hack to make IPv4 not explode in a ball of flame there are far more billions of end points than IP addresses.

The thing is you really don't realize how shit your network experiences are because of this. Everyone is just attempting to tunnel more services via HTTP/HTTPS and the particular fun problems that entails rather than having byzantine hacks built in to their NAT routers. IPv4 is no longer fit for purpose.

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

#156

Post by pixl97 »

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

This is one of the worst takes I've seen in this thread.

NAT is only kind of a firewall and there have been plenty of terrible router firmwares out there that have lead people to subvert it (UPNP being one of the most problematic).

If you in your other thread don't trust the ISP device, then don't trust NAT on your ISP device either. Quite often the ISP can have their modem route traffic from their internal 10 net to your internal network if they so choose to.

Instead IPv4, or IPv6 setup to drop NEW/SYN connections to your devices via a router that you provide.

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

#157

Post by GoofballJones »

"First off I despise both Apple and that other evil empire (house of mouse) I want nothing to do with either of them."

So they decide to go with a company/device that has the absolute worst record of spying on their users? Roku is terrible. But if they're okay with it looking over their shoulder at everything they watch, then go for it.

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

#158

Post by winstonprivacy »

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…

Here you go:

https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2022-02/ipv6-fig4.png

also:

https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2022-02/ipv6-fig5.png

You can answer the rest of your own questions. I am not your personal Google.

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

#159

Post by makomk »

brokencode wrote: post #109
ArchOversight wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the IP address the Roku is trying to reach is an IPv4 address. You can't just translate that to IPv6 and say "good luck little packet". If you translate at the customers router that's fine and all, but now you have an IPv4 packet in an IPv6 packet, that IPv6 packet needs to get routed to a device that knows how to then turn it back into an IPv4 packet so that it can then go travel on the open internet like th…

Oh, what a mess. I don’t like that at all. I was assuming that there was some way to translate the IPv4 address of the server to an IPv6 one and process it that way, putting the burden of supporting IPv6 on the server side. I had no idea that Roku would actually need to be exposing an IPv4 server to handle these requests. That makes sense then that the ISP would need some number of IPv4 addresses that it could use to…

The more usual reason why devices would be making an IPv4 request despite having an IPv6-supporting connection is precisely because the server doesn't support IPv6 - either the network it's on doesn't support it, or it's not configured for it, or more rarely the software on the other end doesn't have IPv6 support. The request can't just be translated into an IPv6 one because there's no way of knowing that the server even understands that, let alone what its associated IPv6 address is.

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

#160

Post by garbagecoder »

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.

So, because I don't want to change something that works and whose predictions of demise have been grossly overstated by decades I'm a shill?

"Just switch to it." Sure, pal, You pay all of the transition costs for everyone and you got a deal.

Not everything needs or should have a public IP address much less a bunch of IOT garbage. I suspect you, like everyone else who just says, whY aReNt We On IpV6 yEt??!11 imagine that most people's security practices are like yours and most people's ability to maintain software and security practices are like yours.

They are not.

I'm holding out for a modern address space extension conceived this century that doesn't suck, or at least a naming convention that doesn't suck. But no one will change until it's really needed and "hack" that improve the Internet, even if by accident, like NAT, can't fix it.

Post reply on HN