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

191–200 of 233 posts

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

#191

Post by cassianoleal »

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…

My internal v6 addressing is as such:

fd65::::/56

The 16-bit-mnemonic is something memorable to me (e.g. b37a:7357 would be addressable l33tsp34k for "beta test" - that's not the one I use :P). In this case, VLAN 10 would be in the fd65:b37a:7357:10::/56. Gateway for it is fd65:b37a:7357:10::1.

It's really not harder than IPv4 for these cases.

Servers and services are assigned static IPs either via DHCPv6 or directly on the boxes (or both as I kinda use the DHCP table as a poor man's IPAM). Other devices internal IPs and globally routable IPs are assigned through SLAAC with privacy extensions where available.

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

#192

Post by phpisthebest »

KerrAvon wrote: post #168
phpisthebest wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am by trade a network administrator, and I run enterprise gear in my home. I am not running a home router or dd-wrt. But I am not a typlical user going down to best buy to pick up the latest Belkin or Asus wireless AP / router combo they have on sale for $99 and hooking it up to my internet using default "wizard" settings from the mobile app... Nor I am I trusting Comcast, or ATT to configure their residental rente…

If I’m following your logic, you’re saying you trust tplink etc to keep Grandma safe, but only for IPv4, and not IPv6? Why?

I am not trusting them, behind a ipv4 nat inbound connections are by default inaccessible

ipv6 most configuration end up with all devices publically routable and must have a firewall deny policy inplace to block inbound connection

Shodan is filled with people with misconfigured ipv4 routers that end up with all kinds of device that should not be on the public internet (webcams, printers etc) out there for anyone to connect to. This requires a user to actively do something on the device (most likely following a bad online tutorial) in order to port something though the NAT.

with IPv6 this problem will get FAR FAR FAR FAR worse.

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

#193

Post by phpisthebest »

Symbiote wrote: post #167
phpisthebest wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am by trade a network administrator, and I run enterprise gear in my home. I am not running a home router or dd-wrt. But I am not a typlical user going down to best buy to pick up the latest Belkin or Asus wireless AP / router combo they have on sale for $99 and hooking it up to my internet using default "wizard" settings from the mobile app... Nor I am I trusting Comcast, or ATT to configure their residental rente…

Large ISPs like Comcast already have enormous IPv6 networks, and have appropriate, default-deny firewall configurations for them. I'm only familiar with the largest ISPs in Britain, but they also have default-deny configurations on the IPv6 routers they supply. Obviously. > Grandma / Sally Try avoiding the casual ageism and sexism.

>Try avoiding the casual ageism and sexism.

Try not to find offense in all things, feel free to refer to my comment thread from the other day about offense being a you problem not a me problem ;)

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

#194

Post by zamadatix »

noAnswer wrote: post #187
zamadatix wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At some point but remember it's not "after 65535 connections per IP" it's "after 65535 connections of the same type to the same IP per IP". That is to saythese NATs where 156.78.92.154 is a single public address on the NATing box:

  156.78.92.154:67818.8.8.8:53 UDP
  156.78.92.154:67818.8.8.8:53 TCP
  156.78.92.154:67818.8.4.4:53 TCP
  156.78.92.154:67818.8.4.4:53 UDP
Can all exist simultaneously even though only 1 port is in use and we haven't even started changing the destination IP or ports yet (e.g. 80 and 443 as the destination won't double count and thousands of web servers on different addresses can be accessed via the same source port).

With CG-NAT you can usually support somewhere around 30k customers on the free /24 you get from ARIN for having only IPv6 and needing space to translate in (for new orgs like new ISPs this is assigned immediately out of a reserved block, bypassing the waitlist for existing orgs trying to get free reclaimed space).

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

#195

Post by phpisthebest »

pixl97 wrote: post #156
phpisthebest wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>If you in your other thread don't trust the ISP device, then don't trust NAT on your ISP device either

There is no logic there. firewall configuration is much harder to secure than NAT configuration.

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

#196

Post by sigjuice »

toast0 wrote: post #150
lmm wrote: post #88

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. 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 backw…

IPv6 doesn't remove fragmentation. IPv6 fragmentation works differently. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200#section-4.5

The Fragment header is used by an IPv6 source to send a packet larger than would fit in the path MTU to its destination. (Note: unlike IPv4, fragmentation in IPv6 is performed only by source nodes, not by routers along a packet's delivery path -- see Section 5.)

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

#197

Post by commandersaki »

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.

Main barrier for me is there’s no interoperability with ipv4, and no official transition plan (just a bunch of rfcs suggesting different transition plans).

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

#198

Post by sigjuice »

tristanbvk wrote: post #131
wvenable wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IPv4 also has link-local addresses. They belong to the range 169.254.0.0/16.

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

#199

Post by Awelton »

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.

Nobody was comparing hardware with software. The point was that things tend to stick around way beyond when their "replacement" rolls out.

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

#200

Post by kalleboo »

garbagecoder wrote: post #160
tristanbvk wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> Sure, pal, You pay all of the transition costs for everyone and you got a deal

Except at this point the costs are reversed - IPv4 costs more than IPv6. Just look at the article we're commenting on - supporting IPv4 clients is costing them a lot more. At the same time more and more cloud hosts are charging more for IPv4. In 2023 it's supporting IPv4 that costs more, not IPv6.

Post reply on HN