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

151–160 of 183 posts

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#151

Post by fc417fc802 »

icedchai wrote: post #142
emilfihlman wrote: post #67

Earlier 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.

IPv6 is often simpler to administer than IPv4. Subnetting is simpler for the common cases. SLAAC eliminates the need for DHCP on many local networks. There's no NAT to deal with (a good thing!) Prefix delegation can be annoying if the prefix changes (my /56 hasn't in almost 3 years.) Other than that, it's mostly the same.

> There's no NAT to deal with

I frequently see this claim made but it simply isn't true. NAT isn't inherent to a protocol it's something the user does on top of it. You can NAT IPv6 just fine there just isn't the same pressure to do so.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#153

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

immibis wrote: post #32
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.

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)

> it does help you avoid being IP-banned

Actually all it does is get everyone behind the CGNAT banned. I've lost access to the WSJ and NYT recently, and other websites over time. For every Cloudflare backed website, I have to pass a captcha on every access.

Fuck those people doing "adversarial interoperability as a client", AI scraping, et al, who take away from thousands of people for profit, then move on to the next pool of victims.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#154

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

neepi wrote: post #43
immibis wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Not quite. I'm in the UK and some of our customers get blocked by overzealous CDNs and they're all on CGNAT.

It's not really overzealous since not banning the CGNAT IPs just gives the abusers safe harbor.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#155

Post by remram »

zzo38computer wrote: post #129
mjg59 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 host…

Note that this is not the only meaning of "virtual hosting". It is very commonly used with different addresses or ports. For example, the Apache `` block. It gets confusing because this is the same block that was used for "named-based virtualhost" (different `ServerName` in the same ``). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_hosting

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#156

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

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.

Someone should tell Cloudflare that because it's not been my experience at all.

(now n=2)

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#157

Post by icedchai »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #151
icedchai wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 is often simpler to administer than IPv4. Subnetting is simpler for the common cases. SLAAC eliminates the need for DHCP on many local networks. There's no NAT to deal with (a good thing!) Prefix delegation can be annoying if the prefix changes (my /56 hasn't in almost 3 years.) Other than that, it's mostly the same.

> There's no NAT to deal with I frequently see this claim made but it simply isn't true. NAT isn't inherent to a protocol it's something the user does on top of it. You can NAT IPv6 just fine there just isn't the same pressure to do so.

Technically, you are correct. Practically speaking, NAT is an inherent part of using IPv4 for 99.99% of end users. I haven't seen an end user or business with a public IP on the desktop in nearly 25 years.

You can NAT IPv6 but it is rarely done since there is simply no need.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#158

Post by icedchai »

rzzzt wrote: post #146
ianburrell wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

> Where are you going to put the extra address bits in the IPv4 header? The optional part. EIP proposed using 16 bits (minimum) to bump the address space to 40 bits (the EIP extension portion is variable-sized so it can go higher until you reach header option limits): https://archive.org/details/rfc1385/page/4/mode/2up

If you read page 9, phase 1 mentions "update all backbone routers and border routers." This is the same problem as IPv6.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#159

Post by icedchai »

b112 wrote: post #145
icedchai wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hey! What if I you will your netblock to me? I'll will you my camaro and my collection of amiga parts. (I really want your netblock)

hah! If I wasn't actively using it, I'd consider renting it out. I bet you could find some early Internet dude that has a /24 they're not using
Post reply on HN