Selfhosted
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
view the rest of the comments
The reason they have no use for a static address is because applications haven't evolved to work that way. Roll back the clock 30 years, do IPv6 seriously so that everyone has static assignments by the time the Y2k problem has come and gone, and you have a very different Internet.
In fact, many applications, like VoIP and game hosting, have to go through all sorts of hoops to work around NAT.
There's pretty much no use for a normal person, just for business and power users like the person above you.
For your couple examples, nobody at home actually runs VOIP except a couple nerds just like nobody has home phones except a couple of old people. And quick game servers don't need statics, and if you are hosting something long term that would push you into the power use space.
Plenty of people used Skype and Vonage. Both were subverted because they have to assume NAT is there.
But they do work better without NAT. That's somewhat separate from static addresses.
My old roommate and I had tons of problems back in the day when we tried to host an Internet game of C&C: Generals behind the same NAT. I couldn't connect to him. He couldn't connect to me. We could connect to each other but nobody outside could. It's a real problem that's only been "solved" because a lot of games have moved to publisher-hosted servers. Which has its own issues with longevity.
As far as I'm aware Skype does not support actual VOIP calling anymore, at least according to Microsoft and the couple forums i just skimmed through. But it's been probably 10+ years since I've actually used it or interacted with anyone who used it haha
And I was talking about static IPs, which are different. And at least in the US (in single family homes) its crazy unlikely that your router is behind any NAT. Unless you're talking about CGNAT but anything short of a dedicated fiber run or dedicated wavelength (which are not options for residential people) you will be behind a CGNAT anyways. Even if you have a public IP.
And, anecdotally. In the last 5-8 years I don't think I've had any issues with NAT when hosting games, it's just firewall rules or my public IP changed. But ymmv on that one when playing 22 year old games haha
Skype won't be supporting anything at all very soon.
What happened with Vonage is something that could happen with any kind of instant messaging, including things like Discord.
With everything directly addressable (not just static addresses, but directly addressable), an IM/VoIP service can simply connect to the recipient. No servers are necessary in between, only routers. That doesn't work with NAT (CG or otherwise), so what you have to do is create a server that everyone connects into, and then that forwards messages to the endpoint. This is:
This is largely invisible to end users until free services get enshittified or something goes wrong.
Yes, it's only tangentially related to static addresses, but it's all part of the package. This is not the Internet we should have had.
Your router has NAT. That's the problem. CGNAT is another problem. My C&C: Generals issues did not have CGNAT.
All routers have NAT, that's sort of their entire role. Are you maybe talking about "double NATing" where you have your router behind the ISP modem/router?
That's not the point of a router. It is one feature that most of not all now have, but it's not their primary purpose.
No they fucking don't, that's not what routers do. You don't know what you're talking about.
And don't fucking tell me NAT is for security, either.
That literally is though? NAT stands for Network Address Translation. It'll take you public IP and translate those packets to use your internal one.
If your computer has an address that starts with
169,168, or10there is a NAT somewhere in your network.And it's a "security thing" in the same way that asking someone's name over the phone prevents impersonation haha
That is NAT, yes. But that is only one small function that a router can perform, and not all routers have NAT enabled. You only need NAT if your ISP only allows you to use a single IP address.
That's not actually true. I can create such a network without connecting it to the internet, no NAT. I can create a second network, again, no NAT. I can then use a gateway router that allows any node on the first network to reach any node on the second. That router is still not doing any NAT. It's just passing traffic between two networks.
Yeah you're right, I was simplifying to the point where I was a little mistaken. I was assuming y5ou're network was connected to the Internet and was just a standard residential setup, but this is a much better explanation.
The distinction is important because we are discussing IPv6. A "standard residential setup" with IPv6 would provide the user with an entire subnet rather than a single IP address. We still need a router to pass traffic from the ISP's network to our own network, but we no longer need NAT.
Not really.
And even as a network amateur I know that its
10.0.0.0/8
172.16.0.0/12
192.168.0.0/16
and 169.254.0.0/16 is not even routable so no dice with NAT.
So someone can connect to you just with with a public IPv4 starting with 192.x.x.x
Have you ever chained three Cisco 2600 routers together and then successfully ping'd clients on each end? Do you know what BGP is? OSPF? Do you know the difference between routing and routed protocols?
I know you don't, because people who do don't make the claims you're making.