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

131–140 of 183 posts

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#131

Post by btucker »

varenc wrote: post #125

How 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'…

I love Monkeybrains! I had something in the neighborhood of a 600mbps symmetric connection through them in the late 2010s when I lived in SF. The only issue was when it rained hard the speeds would deteriorate.

Interesting you're getting such slow speeds. Ask them if a tech can stop by and troubleshoot with you.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#132

Post by rtkwe »

Aachen wrote: post #99
chazeon wrote: post #96

Why would you want to expose your IP to the internet? I still feel that's dangerous, susceptible to DDoS attack, and I avoid that as much as possible. I put everything behind a Tailscale for internal use and behind Cloudflare for external use.

What the heck? That's like not wanting a street address because people might come to block your front door somehow, or burglars might find your building and steal from it. The big brothers you mention would be like gated/walled communities in this analogy I guess Saying this as someone who's hosted from at home for like 15 years Also realise that you're sending the IP address to every website you visit, and in most V…

To do that people have to physically come to my house and there are solutions to that, people can fuck with my internet from anywhere in the world. It's similar to why remote internet voting is such a pandora's box of issues.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#135

Post by icedchai »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #110
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…

For a long time, I operated from home with a auction-purchased IPv4 /24 just so I could get around all this BS and have my own AS. There's nothing nicer than being able to BGP peer and just handle everything yourself. I really miss old Level 3 (before the Lumen/CenturyLink buyout). Kind of kicking myself for selling my netblock but it was a decent amount of money ($6000).

I'm doing exactly this. I got my netblock for free in 1993, back in the Internic days before ARIN existed. I have a couple of VPSes running BGP and tunnel traffic back to my home over wireguard.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#136

Post by ianburrell »

MintPaw wrote: post #124
drdaeman wrote: post #104

Earlier 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?

It isn't possible to make backwards compatible standard that expands the address space. Where are you going to put the extra address bits in the IPv4 header?

It also can't be backwards compatible with IPv4 networking and software. The network gear will drop extra address, the OS will ignore it, and software will blow up.

It would be much better to make a new version. But if going to make new protocol, might as well make the address big enough to not need expansion again.

Then you have to update every networking device to support the new standard. And update all the protocols (DHCP, etc) for more address space. That part is what took a lot of the time for IPv6. Then you have to update all of the software to support 64-bit addresses. Luckily, most of the work was already done for IPv6.

Then you have to support a transition mechanism to talk to IPv4. Except there isn't enough space in new address. IPv6 on the other hand, has enough address space to stuff the IPv4 host and port in the IPv6 address for stateless NAT.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#137

Post by zrm »

> multiple world routeable IPv4 addresses

It's pretty rare that you would need more than one.

If you're running different types of services (e.g. http, mail, ftp) then they each use their own ports and the ports can be mapped to different local machines from the same public IP address.

The most common one where you're likely to have multiple public services using the same protocol is http[s], and for that you can use a reverse proxy. This is only a few lines of config for nginx or haproxy and then you're doing yourself a favor because adding a new one is just adding a single line to the reverse proxy's config instead of having to configure and pay for another IPv4 address.

And if you want to expose multiple private services then have your clients use a VPN and then it's only the VPN that needs a public IP because the clients just use the private IPs over the VPN.

To actually need multiple public IPs you'd have to be doing something like running multiple independent public FTP servers while needing them all to use the official port. Don't contribute to the IPv4 address shortage. :)

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#138

Post by jekwoooooe »

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…

I feel like it’s malicious. They don’t want to support it because it means they can’t charge high prices for static IPs

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#139

Post by cesarb »

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 you get a CAPTCHA. All I get is a "403 Forbidden" with zero extra information. Tried from two different ISPs and different devices.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#140

Post by duskwuff »

dismalpedigree wrote: post #71
remram wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Headscale [1] has a stronger claim to "free version of Tailscale" - it's literally a self-hosted version of Tailscale's coordination server. It's even compatible with the Tailscale client.

[1]: https://headscale.net/

Post reply on HN