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

71–80 of 183 posts

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#71

Post by dismalpedigree »

remram wrote: post #65
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

Yes. Thats the one. Works really well. Basically a free version of tailscale. A bit more of a learning curve.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#72

Post by remram »

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.

I don't know what you mean by "the protocol". There is a destination IP address on every packet... getsockname() will tell the proxy which local IP the client dialed, allowing it to create "virtual hosts" (or you can actually run multiple proxies bound on different local addresses).

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#75

Post by superkuh »

sneak wrote: post #69

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.

At least it is technically possible to complete the dreamwidth captchas now. For many years (well before the modern corporate spidering insanity) dreamwidth was just completely inaccessible no matter how many times one completed their captchas. You'd have to be running a recent version of Chrome or the like.

Now after doing the captcha ~5 times and getting nothing a different captcha pops up that actually works and lets one in.

It's not good but it's a hell of a lot better than their old system.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#77

Post by throw0101d »

jaoane wrote: post #40
neepi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> It’s only an issue if you expect others to connect to you, which is something that almost all people don’t need.

Unless they're playing video games:

* https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=27339...

* https://www.checkmynat.com/posts/optimizing-nat-settings-for...

The video game industry is bigger than movies, television, and music combined:

* https://www.marketing-beat.co.uk/2024/10/22/dentsu-gaming-da...

So I think CGNAT / double-NAT can hit a lot of folks.

> Well yes, decades ago maybe. But that’s not the way things have evolved. Get with the times.

Why? Why should I accept the enshittification of the Internat that has evolved to this point? Why cannot people push for something better?

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#79

Post by tialaramex »

mvanbaak wrote: post #37
mjg59 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Google data strongly suggests that at this point it's probably available to a majority of home users. Corporate remains significantly worse. My employer, which paid me to do IPv6 stuff last century in a very different role, today has IPv6 for random outsiders but if you have a corporate issued laptop IPv6 is disabled and they cheerfully explained that it's "difficult" in a call this week right before I pointed out what I was paid to do and where a quarter century ago. Embarrassing for them.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#80

Post by orangeboats »

jaoane wrote: post #54
messe wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It contributes to it, because now you're behind the same public IP address as X other people. You're then X-times more likely to get flagged as suspicious and need to enter a CAPTCHA X-times more frequently.

Cloudflare easily detects that using your discrete external port range and knows better than to show you a CAPTCHA.

Anecdotal experience (I know, of course... this is sample size n=1) tells me that you can't be further from the truth.

Putting CF aside, anyone who has tried to edit Wikipedia anonymously should understand the pain of CGNAT.

Post reply on HN