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

171–180 of 233 posts

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

#171

Post by JohnFen »

pixl97 wrote: post #155
JohnFen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 rat…

> to make IPv4 not explode in a ball of flame there are far more billions of end points than IP addresses.

But in my LAN, there is no IP address exhaustion. I have orders of magnitude more IP addresses than I'll ever use. IP address exhaustion applies to the internet at large. I'm not talking about that.

In the internet at large, IPv6 has to happen. In my LAN, I don't see a need for it. I can route between the IPv4 endpoints in my LAN and the IPv6 endpoints on the internet.

And because I have IPv4-only hardware on my LAN, I need an IPv4 segment to support it at the very least. So why not keep the entire LAN IPv4?

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

#172

Post by throitallaway »

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I wonder if it's just a bunch of old and outdated Roku boxes causing problems?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 believe Rokus auto-update frequently. All of my devices are up to date on version 11.5.

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

#173

Post by zamadatix »

winstonprivacy wrote: post #158
ArchOversight wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Allocations describe how many new blocks are being assigned. For adoption you'd want something like this link https://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html which displays the number of IPv6 advertisements at a given time, including assignments that were made in previous years from prior allocations.

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

#174

Post by zamadatix »

icedchai wrote: post #164
zamadatix wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side I'm so regularly impressed by what random HNers know about networking (particularly due to containers) I sometimes wonder if there is a point in me being a network guy! I think a large part of the general attitude is IPv6 is a topic everyone is exposed to but few have really been expected to know so there is a lot of strong feelings about how it's crazy compared to the thing they've already spent 20…

I remember the early Internet, before NAT. Everyone had public IPs everywhere. Most universities had public IPs on the desktop (and dorm room.) My home network was a /24 with no NAT. NAT was supposed to be the exception, not the rule.

My first Networking job (2012-2015) was still like that! It was a regional health system that had a /16 from the early 90s (pre-ARIN). We were still using public IPs on printers and guest networks even. It was a bit of a pain going to the next place with 10x the devices and 1/10th the IP space.

Funnily enough the first job with all public IPs was the one with some IPv6 deployed while the 2nd was the one without. Of course it was the same manager in the early 1990s that rolled out IPv4 there that rolled out IPv6 in the 2010s so maybe it's not so surprising.

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

#175

Post by throitallaway »

lockhouse wrote: post #74
adamwk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also think it’s appalling how much input lag there is with these devices. It’s 2023 and there’s seconds long delay between input and response with these things. I get they’re cheap but how much CPU is needed to move a cursor?

I’ve tried pretty much all of them except Apple TV, and I’d say Roku is the least laggy overall. Our FireTV devices became so laggy they were unusable. Android TV isn’t too bad, but Roku feels a bit more responsive to me.

This depends highly on the app that's being used. The Roku OS itself is responsive, but app quality varies widely.

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

#176

Post by MBCook »

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

Don’t confuse kernel support with their custom userspace software. That may be where the issue is.

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

#177

Post by zamadatix »

Symbiote wrote: post #90
zamadatix wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

NAT scales in both dimensions, you're just as likely to need a larger box for a larger connection table as you are a larger bandwidth.

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

#178

Post by harry8 »

JohnFen wrote: post #102
outworlder wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the main barrier to IPV6 is just that people don't want to re-learn anything. I disagree, actually. I think the main barrier is that networking folks have been pretty bad at explaining this to non-networking folks. IPv6 isn't exactly simple to understand. I'm a reasonably network-savvy guy, and I'm sure that I understand less about IPv6 than I think I do. I just don't know what parts I'm not understanding properly,…

It's terrible isn't it. I'm not a network specialist yet have a reasonable enough understanding of ipv4, nat etc that I think my home network is, at least ok. Can look at ip addresses in logs and know what machines most of them are etc.

I get tired of this "I'm an expert you're an idiot" trope that comes up about it. Here on this damn website you have people who hack kernel, people who manage massive databases, people who hack front end stuff that scares me, experts in functional programming, language designers, fpga designers... In short it's very, verry flipping technically adept crowd. You didn't reach them.

Networking "experts" who want to blame everyone else for a lack of understanding need to look in the damn mirror and ask themselves "How did we fail so very, very hard at explaining this stuff?" "Why are we not able to provide a link to an article with an estimate of time taken for everything you need to know about ipv6 to use it exclusively?" "Why don't we want to make this easy for everyone?" "Why can't we be minimally polite?"

I'm an expert in being a jerk on occasion and this occasion the "Everybody else is stupid and lazy because they don't understand it's not us at all" trope is definitely being a jerk. And I'm jerk enough to point it out.

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

#179

Post by mr_toad »

goosedragons wrote: post #67
Scubabear68 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple TV doesn’t have ads.

It basically has ads with the default home screen setup to show you what's new on ATV+ and iTunes. Slightly more tasteful than McDonald's McDelivery Banner ads but it's essentially the same.

> It basically has ads with the default home screen setup to show you what's new on ATV+ and iTunes.

This objection perplexes me. What would you rather have on the Home Screen? A blank screen? A list sorted from A-Z. Oldest to newest (for the most compulsive of TV viewers?)

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

#180

Post by lamontcg »

garbagecoder wrote: post #161
pixl97 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rat…

If I don't realize how shit it is, I don't think it's a shit experience. I don't care how it was designed and what you call a "byzantine hack" I call a feature that saved the Internet about 20-25 years ago. Having everyone on a public addressable host is not good. (Yes, I know you can do this on IPv6, but then it's like you're just applying Byzantine hacks to get the security feature you already had on IPv4.)

> Having everyone on a public addressable host is not good.

We had every host on an IPv4 address at the University of Washington back before 1998 and NAT was actually banned by the CAC Department since they billed by number of nodes on the network, so NAT was a way to cheat their billing system.

I learned quite a lot of internet security from having 1998-era Unix servers hanging directly off onto the internet with no firewall or NAT.

Post reply on HN