Selfhosted

62288 readers

296 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

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
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.
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:

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!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

Is it feasible to run a TURN server behind NAT? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by hackysphere@lemmy.ca to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I am running a defederated local Matrix server, and I need to set up calls. From what I can tell, the "legacy" calls require a STUN and TURN server, and the new MatrixRTC standard seems to require them as well for Livekit to work. However, I do not want to expose anything out to the public internet, as I want everything to be behind NAT for local access only (all of the clients for the server will also be behind the NATted network). I also have Tailscale running on my servers, and it would be useful if I would be able to connect to the TURN server even when not in the network. Is there a way to get STUN/TURN to work in this situation? It seems that all the servers expect to have public network access.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] thelittleblackbird@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What a lot of nonsense. Of course the technology exists and of course it can be done. But in reality is not done because it simply doesn't bring any benefit.

And in addition a address translation is not nat (tm) because the server can be hit from the outside.

Today in ipv4 we have likely 2 Nats, 1 after your router and the other by the carrier (cgnat) and ipv6 those are non existent

[–] Aganim@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It was meant tongue-in-cheek, you seem to be taking it much more seriously than I intended it to be. 🙂

But in reality is not done because it simply doesn't bring any benefit.

Fully agree that there is absolutely no benefit to NAT66, it only causes enormous headaches. I sincerely hope nobody uses it these days, this poor bastard however did manage to find a VPS provider that used NAT66 back in 2018: https://blog.apnic.net/2018/02/02/nat66-good-bad-ugly/ 🤢

[–] thelittleblackbird@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Fuck, there is a law in internet (which name I cannot recall) about the impossibility of distinguish an ironic message.

I felt in that trap completely!!

[–] Aganim@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Haha, don't worry, no harm done. Maybe I was a bit too subtle in hindsight.

That's Poe's Law by the way.