5 ms·

I find it a little odd to blame Roku for this $300k expense. What about the rest of the Internet that is only accessible via IPv4? As a service provider, isn't

I find it a little odd to blame Roku for this $300k expense. What about the rest of the Internet that is only accessible via IPv4? As a service provider, isn't it _your job_ to connect people? Looking at this blog post [1] (it's older though claims to be updated) there are still major websites like Amazon, Reddit and Zoom that do not offer IPv6 for their landing pages. Let's say Roku did support IPv6... Should these users just be told they can't use services like Amazon.com? Don't get me wrong, Roku should support IPv6 and I have nothing against naming and shaming. But to suggest they're the only reason you need NAT services is just misleading. [1] https://www.6connect.com/blog/ipv6-progress-report-top-sites-2019/ https://www.6connect.com/blog/ipv6-progress-report-top-sites... Edit: Here's a more updated list that shows other sites like tiktok don't support IPv6 either. http://www.delong.com/ipv6_alexa500.html http://www.delong.com/ipv6_alexa500.html

wmf 4y ago
With less IPv4 traffic maybe the NAT would have been $30K instead of $300K.
eppp 4y ago
That is the pain of IPv6. We can do everything perfectly as an ISP and still we have to support the old stuff indefinitely. It is maddening that the IPv6 fanboys leave out this step. At what point can we stop doing both?
- wmf 4y ago
  The cost of the IPv4 transition equipment ramps down over time. You may never be able to turn it off completely.
  - eppp 4y ago
    The cost of maintaining it doesn't. I have never read why the standards folks didn't make IPV6 a superset of IPV4 but my goodness I wish they had. I would have probably made the implementation harder at the time but it would have helped by now.
1letterunixname 4y ago
I don't understand who held a gun to their head to make them spend this money. OPNsense is free and so is hurricane's tunnel broker. https://tunnelbroker.net https://tunnelbroker.net

wmf 4y ago

With less IPv4 traffic maybe the NAT would have been $30K instead of $300K.

eppp 4y ago

That is the pain of IPv6. We can do everything perfectly as an ISP and still we have to support the old stuff indefinitely. It is maddening that the IPv6 fanboys leave out this step. At what point can we stop doing both?

wmf 4y ago
The cost of the IPv4 transition equipment ramps down over time. You may never be able to turn it off completely.
- eppp 4y ago
  The cost of maintaining it doesn't. I have never read why the standards folks didn't make IPV6 a superset of IPV4 but my goodness I wish they had. I would have probably made the implementation harder at the time but it would have helped by now.

1letterunixname 4y ago

I don't understand who held a gun to their head to make them spend this money. OPNsense is free and so is hurricane's tunnel broker. https://tunnelbroker.net https://tunnelbroker.net