I run a very small VPS at Hetzner with Pangolin on it that takes care of all the Traefic Wireguard tunneling to my home servers. Very easy to set up and operate. https://fossorial.io/
What is the vps for? Just the static ip?
Locally hosting an internet-connected server
121–130 of 183 posts
Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server
#122How is it different from self hosting locally with Cloudflare tunnels or Tailscale?
E.g. I have a PiZero attached to my router and it’s exposed to the internet via Cloudflare tunnels.
Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server
#123Quote from OPs ISP [1]: "Factors leading to a successful installation: Safe access to the roof without need for a helicopter." [1] https://www.monkeybrains.net/residential.php#residential
I wish I had access to a small ISP. It is comforting to know that if something goes wrong, on the other end of the line there is someone with a Cisco shell open ready to run a traceroute.
For sure…in case of reaction times and flexibility they are great…Until something serious happens outside of their scope.
Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It'll be objectively worse. IPv6 is at least sort of supported by a non-negligible number of devices, software and organizations. This IPv8 would be a whole new protocol, that no one out there supports. The fact that version 8 was already defined in [an obsolete] RFC1621 doesn't help either. Even if you decide to try to make it a Frankenstein's monster of a protocol, making it a two IPv4 packets wrapped in each other…
Are you saying you believe it's truly impossible to create a new backwards compatible standard that expands the address space and doesn't require everyone to upgrade for it to work?
Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server
#125How is the author getting a symmetric 600mbps connection with Monkeybrains? They're an awesome local ISP and provide internet via roof mounted PtM wireless connections.
I want to love them, but sadly I only get an unreliable 80mbps/40mbps connection from them. With occasional latency spikes that make it much worse. To make up for this I run a multi-WAN gateway connecting to my neighbor/friend's Comcast as well. Here's the monkeybrains (https://i.imgur.com/FaByZbw.jpeg) vs comcast (https://i.imgur.com/jTa6Ldk.jpeg) latency log.
Curious if the author had to do anything special to get a symmetric 600mbps from Monkeybrains. They make no guarantees about speed at all, but are quite cheap, wholesome, and have great support. Albeit support hasn't been able to get me anywhere close to the author's speeds.
Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server
#126How is it different from self hosting locally with Cloudflare tunnels or Tailscale? E.g. I have a PiZero attached to my router and it’s exposed to the internet via Cloudflare tunnels.
i also do cloudflare tunnel.
Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'll be objectively worse. IPv6 is at least sort of supported by a non-negligible number of devices, software and organizations. This IPv8 would be a whole new protocol, that no one out there supports. The fact that version 8 was already defined in [an obsolete] RFC1621 doesn't help either. Even if you decide to try to make it a Frankenstein's monster of a protocol, making it a two IPv4 packets wrapped in each other…
Are you saying you believe it's truly impossible to create a new backwards compatible standard that expands the address space and doesn't require everyone to upgrade for it to work?
If it's possible, why has no one done it? Most of the backwards compatible "solutions" that are presented just run into the same issues as IPv6 but with a more quirky design.
Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server
#128I feel like I missed a preread that teaches me about these strangle super-numeric ip addresses. Eg 400.564.987.500 Am I just seeing ipv6 in an unusually familiar format? Or is it an intentionally malformed format used by wireguard for internal routing?
Looks like modified placeholder addresses because the author didn't want to use real addresses. I don't think it could be used for internal routing since each octet is represented with a single byte (0-255) so having larger numbers for some internal routing would likely break the entire IP stack.
Yes the author needs to be beaten over the head with RFC 5737.
Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
I have one public IP address. I have three machines behind it that I want to SSH into. How does the machine with the public address know where to route an incoming port 22 packet? For HTTPS this is easy - browsers send the desired site in the SNI field of the TLS handshake, so the frontend can look at that and route appropriately. For SSH there's no indication of which host the packet is intended for.
HTTPS and any other protocol that uses TLS has virtual hosting (because TLS has virtual hosting), and so does unencrypted HTTP (with the "Host" header), and some "small web" protocols such a Spartan and Scorpion. (In the case of Spartan, the domain name is the first thing the client sends to the server, which should make it easy to implement.) Like you mention, SSH does not. IRC and NNTP also do not have virtual hosting as far as I can tell, although I had suggested to add a HOST command to these protocols to implement virtual hosting.
Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server
#130This 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.
The reason IPv6 adoption is lacking is that there's no business case for it from consumer-grade ISPs, not that there's an inherent problem with IPv6. Your proposed IPv8 standard would have the exact same adoption issues.