Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Locally hosting an internet-connected server

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 183 posts

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#31

Post by jxjnskkzxxhx »

JdeBP wrote: post #29

This and the comments highlight how bad many ISPs in North America and Western Europe are at IPv6, still , in 2025, and the lengths to which people will go to treat that as damage and literally route around it. One of the biggest ISPs in my country has been promising IPv6 since 2016. Another, smaller, competitor, advertised on "World IPv6 Day" in 2011 that it was way ahead of the competition on supplying IPv6; but in…

> Heath Robinson contraption

Ah, I see you also watched that video yesterday on manufacturing a tiny electric rotor.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#32

Post by immibis »

neepi wrote: post #23
messe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only works if you're not behind CGNAT, which has problems in and of itself. I pay my ISP an extra 29 DKK (about 4.50 USD at the moment) for a static address; my IPv4 connections and downloads in-general became way more stable after getting out from behind CGNAT.

CGNAT is hell. Here I had to choose between crap bandwidth or CGNAT. I chose crap bandwidth.

Hell for hosting, but if you're doing adversarial interoperability as a client, it does help you avoid being IP-banned. (At least in Western countries. I hear that Africa and Latin America tend to just get their CGNAT gateways banned because site operators don't give a shit about whether users from those regions can use their sites)

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#33

Post by anonymousiam »

I did the same thing 20 years ago, but I used vtun because Wireguard didn't exist yet. It's a cool way to get around the bogus limitations on residential static IP addresses.

At the time, my FiOS was about $80/month, but they wanted $300/month for a static IP. I used a VPS (at the time with CrystalTech), which was less than $50/month. Net savings: $170/month.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#34

Post by PhilipRoman »

mjg59 wrote: post #9
lazylizard wrote: post #6

you can also run a proxy on the vps instead of the nat.

Depends on the protocol. For web, sure - for ssh, nope, since the protocol doesn't indicate which machine it's trying to connect to and so you don't know where to proxy it to.

Socket based proxying is better for this, since you eliminate one point from your attack surface (if your proxy server gets compromised, it's just encrypted ssh/TLS)

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#35

Post by JdeBP »

jxjnskkzxxhx wrote: post #31
JdeBP wrote: post #29

This and the comments highlight how bad many ISPs in North America and Western Europe are at IPv6, still , in 2025, and the lengths to which people will go to treat that as damage and literally route around it. One of the biggest ISPs in my country has been promising IPv6 since 2016. Another, smaller, competitor, advertised on "World IPv6 Day" in 2011 that it was way ahead of the competition on supplying IPv6; but in…

> Heath Robinson contraption Ah, I see you also watched that video yesterday on manufacturing a tiny electric rotor.

I actually learned the expression when I was a child, via the Professor Branestawm books.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#36

Post by anonymousiam »

mjg59 wrote: post #30
JdeBP wrote: post #29

This and the comments highlight how bad many ISPs in North America and Western Europe are at IPv6, still , in 2025, and the lengths to which people will go to treat that as damage and literally route around it. One of the biggest ISPs in my country has been promising IPv6 since 2016. Another, smaller, competitor, advertised on "World IPv6 Day" in 2011 that it was way ahead of the competition on supplying IPv6; but in…

Pretty much! My ISP was founded by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Rucker and is somewhat cheap and delightful and happily routes me a good amount of IPv6, and every 48 hours or so it RAs me an entirely different range even though I still have validity on the lease for the old one and everything breaks, so I've had to turn IPv6 off entirely (I sent dumps of the relevant lease traffic to support, they said they'd l…

One of my places uses Frontier FiOS (soon to become Verizon again). They have zero support for IPv6, and it isn't even on their roadmap.

I use a static HE (Hurricane Electric) IPv6 tunnel there, and it works great.

The only issue is that YouTube thinks the IPv6 block is commercial or an AI dev scraping their content, so I can't look at videos unless I'm logged in to YouTube.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#37

Post by mvanbaak »

mjg59 wrote: post #8
rkagerer wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they don't all need distinct external IP addresses of their own, port forwarding is a typical approach.

That doesn't work well if you want to run the same service on multiple machines. For some you can proxy that (eg, for web you can just run nginx to proxy everything based on either the host header or SNI data), but for others you can't - you're only going to be able to have one machine accepting port 22 traffic for ssh.

ipv6 has solved this. Too bad it's not yet a common thing.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#39

Post by lostlogin »

anonymousiam wrote: post #33

I did the same thing 20 years ago, but I used vtun because Wireguard didn't exist yet. It's a cool way to get around the bogus limitations on residential static IP addresses. At the time, my FiOS was about $80/month, but they wanted $300/month for a static IP. I used a VPS (at the time with CrystalTech), which was less than $50/month. Net savings: $170/month.

> At the time, my FiOS was about $80/month, but they wanted $300/month for a static IP.

So ridiculous.

It’s fast, far quicker than I can use, and the static IP was a one off $10 or similar.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#40

Post by jaoane »

neepi wrote: post #23
messe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only works if you're not behind CGNAT, which has problems in and of itself. I pay my ISP an extra 29 DKK (about 4.50 USD at the moment) for a static address; my IPv4 connections and downloads in-general became way more stable after getting out from behind CGNAT.

CGNAT is hell. Here I had to choose between crap bandwidth or CGNAT. I chose crap bandwidth.

CGNAT is completely irrelevant to the average person. It’s only an issue if you expect others to connect to you, which is something that almost all people don’t need.

(inb4 but the internet was made to receive connections! Well yes, decades ago maybe. But that’s not the way things have evolved. Get with the times.)

Post reply on HN