this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
108 points (96.6% liked)

Selfhosted

60587 readers
1147 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
 

What's happening on your servers? Any interesting news things you tried?

I didn't do anyone other than updating Mastodon (native deployment) lately due to a lack of time. Reading so much about Immich caused me to consider trying it in parallel to Nextcloud but I'm not sure if I want to have everything twice.

Not quite homelab, but I'm about to install Linux Mint on my mom's laptop and that had me thinking about creating an off-site backup in her place again since she has a fiber connection. I'm still not sure about the potential design though, but currently my only backup is in the same rack as the live stuff.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

No, I got it from the horse's mouth: my WAN address was publicly routable all along, the ISP just disabled those NAT-related features remotely.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

the implication of that is weird to me. I'm not saying that the horse is wrong, but thats such a non-standard solution. That's implementing a CGNAT restriction without the benefits of CGNAT. They would need to only allow internal to external connections unless the connection was already established. How does standard communication still function if it was that way, I know that would break protocols like basic UDP, since that uses a fire and forget without internal prompting.

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

It's perfectly reasonable from the perspective of corporate scum: take away a standard feature, then sell it back as an extra. As far as I know, the modem still had UPnP for applications that rely on it.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

Oh shit, that's terrible.