this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
59 points (91.5% liked)

Selfhosted

60723 readers
154 users here now

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:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Good FOSS software and reliable service providers? Etc.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's why IPv6 is important, but many didn't listen.

[–] Andres4NY@social.ridetrans.it 3 points 2 years ago

@chronicledmonocle @sugar_in_your_tea This is why I love yggdrasil. Thanks to having a VPS running it that all of my hosts globally can connect to, I can just use IPv6 for everything and reverse proxy using those IPv6 addresses where I need to. Once hosts are connected and on my private yggdrasil network, I stop caring about CGNAT or IPv4 at all other than to maybe create public IPv4 access to a service.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

IPv6 doesn't help anything if you're behind CGNAT, you can have internal-only IPv6. There are good reasons to not have every household directly accessible to the outside world, so I'm sympathetic to that, but they also seem to love charging extra for it.

[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

CGNAT only applies to IPv4. You cannot NAT IPv6 effectively. It's not designed to be NATed. While there IS provisions for private IPv6 addressing, nobody actually does it because it's pointless.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sure, but NPTv6 exists, and I wouldn't put it past an ISP to do something like that.

[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Network Prefix Translation isn't the same thing. That's used for things like MultiWAN so that your IPv6 subnet from another WAN during a failover event can still communicate by chopping off the first half and replacing the subnet with the one from the secondary WAN. It is not NAT like in IPv4 and doesn't have all of the pitfalls and gotchas. You still have direct communications without the need for things like port forwarding or 1:1 NAT translations.

I'm a Network Engineer of over a decade and a half. I live and breath this shit. Lol.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, it's not the same, but it can be used to bridge private addresses onto a public network, which is basically what NAT is trying to achieve. If you're running an ISP and don't want customers to be directly accessible from the internet, it seems reasonable. In an ISP setup, you would issue private net addresses and just not do the translation if the customer doesn't pay.

Yes, you can achieve the same thing another way, but I could see them deciding to issue private net addresses so customers don't expect public routing without paying, whereas issuing regular public IPv6 addresses makes it clear that the block is entirely artificial.

[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Just because you can doesn't mean anyone does. I've never seen an ISP hand out "private" IPv6 addresses. Ever.

If you're doing NAT on IPv6, you're doing it wrong and stupid. Plain and simple.

[–] Shimitar@feddit.it 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, there are workarounds... And who knows, maybe its just safer than public ip... But definitely require some external fixture.

[–] kchr@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I guess you already know about the options, but for others:

Find the cheapest VPS out there and have a Wireguard tunnel between it and your home network. Run ddclient or similar on the VPS in case the public IP changes.

[–] Shimitar@feddit.it 1 points 2 years ago

Wireguard or ssh tunnel with port forwards, both works.

Yup, that's what I did. I even have my TLS servers running on my LAN as well, so once my ISP no longer puts me behind CGNAT, I just need to change my DNS settings and set up some port forwards on my router.