[HN Gopher] Roku Doesn't Support IPv6 and It Might Be a Big Deal
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Roku Doesn't Support IPv6 and It Might Be a Big Deal
        
       Author : danaris
       Score  : 9 points
       Date   : 2023-03-06 19:58 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (daringfireball.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (daringfireball.net)
        
       | brucethemoose2 wrote:
       | This sounds like Roku's AV1 fight with Google:
       | 
       | https://www.nexttv.com/news/did-roku-quietly-capitulate-on-a...
        
       | Symbiote wrote:
       | This is 90% a quote from a forum post, with the context removed,
       | and a criticism of the author as the only commentary.
       | 
       | The linked post is more useful:
       | https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s...
        
       | treesknees wrote:
       | 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...
       | 
       | 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
        
         | eppp wrote:
         | 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 wrote:
           | The cost of the IPv4 transition equipment ramps down over
           | time. You may never be able to turn it off completely.
        
         | wmf wrote:
         | With less IPv4 traffic maybe the NAT would have been $30K
         | instead of $300K.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-03-06 23:03 UTC)