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

181–190 of 233 posts

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

#181

Post by [deleted] »

frankreyes wrote: post #139
zamadatix wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#182

Post by JohnFen »

xxpor wrote: post #65
hitpointdrew wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 you need a DNS server? That's what mDNS is for.

mDNS has some downsides that can be important for some. For instance, the fact that you can more easily set the same host name on multiple machines, or the fact that it uses a lot of bandwidth.

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

#183

Post by filmgirlcw »

javajosh wrote: post #62
filmgirlcw wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would the point be, exactly? The stuff that makes a Roku worthwhile are all the apps and the proprietary drivers and networking stack stuff. If you're going to put an alternate distro on it, you might be better off getting a whitebox Android TV/Kodi/whatever box off of Aliexpress than trying to get around the limitations on the Roku hardware.

It would be pretty cool to be able to program my Roku to do anything I want, rather than be limited to whatever they want. In theory I can connect another device to the TV and use it as a display, but even in that case the Roku software is active. A security researcher (amateur or professional) is going to want to get in there and see what's going on in addition to running through a proxy. There are also some scenari…

Right -- and I get that -- but I guess my point is, what can even really be done by rooting a Roku, since all the stuff in user space is close source/proprietary and the drivers are unlikely to be useful with an alternate distro.

A RPi would be a much better choice for a poor kid in a neighborhood who wanted to have a way to program.

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

#184

Post by lamontcg »

harry8 wrote: post #178
JohnFen wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, peopl…

Yeah as an old former-system admin its kind of amusing to be on the receiving end...

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

#185

Post by zamadatix »

toast0 wrote: post #146
outworlder wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I raise you a B550M board! https://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/mb/introduction.php?S_ID=9...

Depending on the rules there's also the https://www.asus.com/motherboards-components/motherboards/pr... with ps/2 and while there is no physical VGA you can passive adapter one out of the DisplayPort connector.

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

#186

Post by anotherhue »

hitpointdrew wrote: post #50
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 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…

I felt this way until I learned that the RFC1918s we all love (10. 192.168. etc.) have a nice v6 equivalent: fd80::1 fd80::2 ... etc.

https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/lir-basics/i...

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

#187

Post by noAnswer »

zamadatix wrote: post #177
Symbiote wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At some point you also need more IPv4-addresses. There are only 65535 ports to be mapped.

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

#188

Post by JohnFen »

garbagecoder wrote: post #166
yamtaddle wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portscanning for smb shares and webcams, LOL. Good times. Found entire offices routing their whole network publicly, back then, shared network drives and printers right there for use by anyone who stumbled on them. It was nuts. Worms spread like crazy. It was a real mess, and that's with the Internet being way the fuck friendlier than it is now.

What's ironic is that the IPv6 people will tell you you can do all of that with IPv6. Which is true, but if we NEED TO CHANGE because we're out of addresses then why go to something that doesn't use the address space? The problem IPv6 seeks to address has mostly been engineered around for now.

> The problem IPv6 seeks to address has mostly been engineered around for now.

For now is the operative phrase. These are band-aids to keep IPv4 running, but they won't be effective forever.

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

#189

Post by JohnFen »

Narkov wrote: post #148
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?

He's talking about running IPv4 on his LAN, not the internet. That wouldn't use up any of the internet's IPv4 space and wouldn't affect other internet users.

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

#190

Post by toast0 »

zamadatix wrote: post #185
toast0 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I raise you a B550M board! https://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/mb/introduction.php?S_ID=9... Depending on the rules there's also the https://www.asus.com/motherboards-components/motherboards/pr... with ps/2 and while there is no physical VGA you can passive adapter one out of the DisplayPort connector.

Passive adapters from DisplayPort to VGA sounds unlikely? Port powered adapter, sure, but unless they're doing something really weird, you need at least some DACs and maybe something to translate sync? That's unlike single channel dvi-d hdmi conversion which is just a matter of connecting pins; IIUC, you can passively convert from display port to single channel dvi-d (and therefore hdmi), but dual-channel dvi-d needs active conversion too.

If it were passive, I'd say it counts (maybe some board connected vga to the dvi-a pins?), but I not the OP.

Post reply on HN