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

61–70 of 183 posts

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#61

Post by jeroenhd »

jaoane wrote: post #44
juergbi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloudflare sometimes preventing access to some sites and annoying CAPTCHA challenges due to CGNAT are relevant to the average person. Full IPv6 support should be a requirement for both ISPs as well as websites and other servers.

> Cloudflare sometimes preventing access to some sites and annoying CAPTCHA challenges due to CGNAT are relevant to the average person. They would be, but thankfully CGNAT doesn’t cause that.

It's not a direct cause, but if an IP is hitting my website with spam, I don't care if it's a spam bot or a CGNAT exit point. The only way to stop the spam is to take action against the IP address. For CGNAT customers, that means extra CAPTCHAs or worse.

You can ask your ISP for your own IPv6 subnet if you don't want to be lumped in with the people whose computers and phones are part of a scraping/spamming botnet.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#62

Post by jeroenhd »

politelemon wrote: post #17

Another alternative could be a cloudflare tunnel. It requires installing their Daemon on the server and setting up DNS in their control panel. No ports need opening from the outside in.

The downside of the Cloudflare approach is that yet more websites are behind Cloudflare's control. The VPS approach works pretty much the same way Cloudflare does, but without the centralized control.

On the other hand, Cloudflare is a pretty easy solution against spam bots and scrapers. Probably a better choice if that's something you need protection against.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#63

Post by PaulKeeble »

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…

Mine officially supports it. However having configured the Prefix as they define and using SLAAC etc all my devices get their IPv6 addresses and can access the internet, I can even connect from outside the network so it all "works", but I have a bunch of issues. Neither of my ISPs defined DNS servers is available, I can't route one of the OpenDNS routers but the other works fine and then I have these periods where the entirity of IPv6 routing breaks for about a minute and then restores. Having done this with two different routers on completely different firmware now I can't help but think my official support from my ISP is garbage and they have major problems with it. I had to turn it off because it causes all sorts of problems.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#64

Post by PaulKeeble »

jeroenhd wrote: post #62
politelemon wrote: post #17

Another alternative could be a cloudflare tunnel. It requires installing their Daemon on the server and setting up DNS in their control panel. No ports need opening from the outside in.

The downside of the Cloudflare approach is that yet more websites are behind Cloudflare's control. The VPS approach works pretty much the same way Cloudflare does, but without the centralized control. On the other hand, Cloudflare is a pretty easy solution against spam bots and scrapers. Probably a better choice if that's something you need protection against.

Everyone does these days, although its really the AI scrapers you need defence from and Cloudflare isn't doing so good at that yet.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#65

Post by remram »

dismalpedigree wrote: post #47

I do something similar. I run a nebula network. The vps has haproxy and is passing the encrypted data to the hosts using sni to figure out the specific host. No keys on the vps. The vps and each host are each nebula nodes. I can put the nodes wherever i want. Some are on an additional vps, some are running on proxmox locally. I even have one application running as a geo-isolated and redundant application on a small c…

This Nebula? https://github.com/slackhq/nebula

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#67

Post by emilfihlman »

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…

Once again I voice the only sane option: Skip IPv6 and the insanity that it is, and do IPv8 and simply double (or quadruple) the address space without introducing other new things.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#68

Post by fainpul »

> Let's say the external IP address you're going to use for that machine is 321.985.520.309 and the wireguard address of your local system is 867.420.696.005.

What is going on here with these addresses? I'm used to seeing stuff like this in movies – where it always destroys my immersion because now I have to think about the clueless person who did the computer visuals – but surely this author knows about IPv4 addresses?

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#69

Post by sneak »

This article was not worth having to solve a captcha to read.

I think I will be done with sites that require me to solve captchas to visit for simple reading, just as I am done with sites that require me to run javascript to read their text.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#70

Post by l-p »

fainpul wrote: post #68

> Let's say the external IP address you're going to use for that machine is 321.985.520.309 and the wireguard address of your local system is 867.420.696.005. What is going on here with these addresses? I'm used to seeing stuff like this in movies – where it always destroys my immersion because now I have to think about the clueless person who did the computer visuals – but surely this author knows about IPv4 address…

The author did not want to use real addresses and was not aware of the 192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24, and 203.0.113.0/24 ranges specified in RFC 5737 - IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation.
Post reply on HN