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

161–170 of 183 posts

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#161

Post by rubatuga »

messe wrote: post #18
DougN7 wrote: post #2

Why not use a dynamic DNS service instead? I’ve been using dyn.com (now oci.dyn.com) for years and it has worked great. A bonus is many home routers have support built in.

Only works if you're not behind CGNAT, which has problems in and of itself. I pay my ISP an extra 29 DKK (about 4.50 USD at the moment) for a static address; my IPv4 connections and downloads in-general became way more stable after getting out from behind CGNAT.

If you're behind a CGNAT - check out hoppy.network

High quality IPv4 + a whole /56 IPv6 for $8/month

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#162

Post by rzzzt »

icedchai wrote: post #158
rzzzt wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The effort is a bit smaller because existing stacks can already read what's in the EIP part as it disguises itself as an option header. The change is behavioral not structural.

Also with the extra octet added we'd get ~254 current-IPv4-sized clusters of addresses. If a unit inside one of these doesn't really care about the others they can skip supplying this information entirely, i.e. not all participants need to understand the extension. LANs, internal networks and residential use comes to mind as examples in which case only the gateway has to be updated just like the RFC says.

With IPv6 participation is all or nothing or dual stack, but then this is ~1.1 stack :)

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#163

Post by PeterStuer »

wredcoll wrote: post #121
PeterStuer wrote: post #49

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?

To have a public front that is outside of the lan firewall. The idea is that you do not have to open your lan to anything. The only communication will be the encrypted wireguard tunnel between the VPS and your Newt instance.

You can run the Pangolin also on the lan, but you will need to open a few ports then on your lan firewall, and manage your ddns etc. if you do not have a fixed IP at home.

For less than 4€/month I opted for the VPS route.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#164

Post by rzzzt »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #153
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)

> 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 nex…

YouTube showed me a "this household watches suspiciously many videos" once when the provider moved us behind a CGNAT (because 100 households were suddenly watching from the same address, not just one).

It also messes a bit with geolocation, we frequently teleport to different places within the country.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#165

Post by MartijnBraam »

icedchai wrote: post #157
fc417fc802 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I nat IPv6 on one of my servers because having seperate ipv6 for VMS but the same IPv4 has caused some issues with running mail servers and certificates. If only I could drop IPv4 completely

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#166

Post by messe »

rubatuga wrote: post #161
messe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only works if you're not behind CGNAT, which has problems in and of itself. I pay my ISP an extra 29 DKK (about 4.50 USD at the moment) for a static address; my IPv4 connections and downloads in-general became way more stable after getting out from behind CGNAT.

If you're behind a CGNAT - check out hoppy.network High quality IPv4 + a whole /56 IPv6 for $8/month

That's way more expensive than what I already have. My ISP, by default, provides me a /56, of which I'm only using two /64 subnets at the moment. For an extra 29 DKK (4.50 USD), I get a static IPv4 as well.

I also don't need to worry about the additional latency of a VPN, and have symmetric gigabit speeds, rather than 100Mbps up/down.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#167

Post by immibis »

rzzzt wrote: post #164
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 nex…

YouTube showed me a "this household watches suspiciously many videos" once when the provider moved us behind a CGNAT (because 100 households were suddenly watching from the same address, not just one). It also messes a bit with geolocation, we frequently teleport to different places within the country.

Yeah, but in this case, the negotiation between the ISP and YouTube typically ends with the IP being unblocked. It's not like when one household is actually watching as much as 100 people, when the IP stays blocked.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#168

Post by tialaramex »

mvanbaak wrote: post #112
tialaramex wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ou…

A lot of consumer connections do indeed provide ipv6. But some are unstable, some change addresses every X days, some have weird routing etc etc.

Meta IIRC is one of several outfits which unsurprisingly discovered that (as a corporation) the cure is just purchasing policy. When your new Doodad vendor sells you a product that is IPv4 only instead of saying "Oh, shame, OK, set all corporate systems to IPv4-only" you point them to the line in your purchase contract which says you require IPv6 and it's not your problem it's their problem, do they want to fix it or refund you ?

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#169

Post by icedchai »

rzzzt wrote: post #162
icedchai wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The effort is a bit smaller because existing stacks can already read what's in the EIP part as it disguises itself as an option header. The change is behavioral not structural. Also with the extra octet added we'd get ~254 current-IPv4-sized clusters of addresses. If a unit inside one of these doesn't really care about the others they can skip supplying this information entirely, i.e. not all participants need to und…

That RFC glosses over a LOT of details. I'm skeptical the effort would be a bit smaller, once you consider what is required for routing and the "translation service." That's totally glossed over in the RFC, by the way.

Unless you're planning on doing all IP communications in user space (or within your network "cluster"), the OS and IP stack still needs to be updated, you need a new addressing format, applications need to be aware of it, etc. If you want to actually make use of the new address space, it all needs to be updated... just like IPv6.

Re: Locally hosting an internet-connected server

#170

Post by lostmsu »

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…

I switched from Nebula to Yggdrasil (IPv6, global, but not the same as public IPv6). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43967082
Post reply on HN