Is Self Hosting Going Mainstream? 135
An anonymous reader shares that IPv6rs has debuted a new one-click self hosting system:
Everyone seemed like they were talking about self hosting, but we didn't understand why it wasn't more prolific. Thus, we conducted a survey to hear reasons. It turned out the two most common reasons were:
1. Lack of an external IP address 2. Too difficult to setup and maintain
Our service already solves the first issue. We set out with a self-hostathon to figure out what the blockers were in setting up and running a self-hosted server. ... writes IPv6rs on their blog. We needed to make things easier, so we created Cloud Seeder, a one click installer that instantly launches a fully encapsulated server appliance that is externally reachable.
At the time of launching, the current version of Cloud Seeder supports 20+ different appliances - from Mastodon which federates with Meta's Threads to Nextcloud which provides an enterprise-level, self-hosted alternative to the big-name collaboration suites.
It also automatically handles updates/maintenance.
We hope this will bring a new era to self hosting and, in turn, will bring the decentralized internet forest back. Is the self hosting era making its return?
1. Lack of an external IP address 2. Too difficult to setup and maintain
Our service already solves the first issue. We set out with a self-hostathon to figure out what the blockers were in setting up and running a self-hosted server. ... writes IPv6rs on their blog. We needed to make things easier, so we created Cloud Seeder, a one click installer that instantly launches a fully encapsulated server appliance that is externally reachable.
At the time of launching, the current version of Cloud Seeder supports 20+ different appliances - from Mastodon which federates with Meta's Threads to Nextcloud which provides an enterprise-level, self-hosted alternative to the big-name collaboration suites.
It also automatically handles updates/maintenance.
We hope this will bring a new era to self hosting and, in turn, will bring the decentralized internet forest back. Is the self hosting era making its return?
Return? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google "Cloud Repatriation" (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies are at the end of the 7 year hype cycle and realizing that cloud costs more, is more complex to manage, more complex to secure and has a much harder time to find and keep experienced staff than on prem.
Gartner 7 year technology hype cycle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Or, how Gartner always has some new 'revolutionary' technology/process to revolutionize your business and earn Gartner millions of consulting dollars.
Look at past Gartner 7 year technology hype cycles and you will find that less than 10% of the hyped technologies actually get used on a wide scale and of that 10% only a few actually are beneficial from a ROI standpoint.
Is a technology stabilization movement needed? (Score:3)
Does the tech community (not the companies, cloud vendors, software vendors) need to just slow down on adopting the latest hot technology of the month for a few years and pick the longer lived proven technologies?
A rational discussion of 'its cool and new technology' today with a 'will it be viable in 5 years' discussion a the same time is needed. Without the knee-jerk, you are against progress, against best practices, nonsensical and unprovable shout from half the room.
Example Snowflake (Score:2)
What are the concerns about recommending and implementing a large Snowflake installation give that it has lost large amounts of money each year for the last 4 years (has it ever made a profit?)
https://finance.yahoo.com/quot... [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Explaining.... (Score:2)
With the cloud, it's near impossible to hold a rational "what is the cloud appropriate for", "what is not well suited to the cloud" discussion in many companies.
We should be able to have that discussion in a reasoned manner.
What's blocking this is that executive stakeholders get rewarded by implementing large projects, large changes and reengineering. Executives do not get rewarded if they do not have a visionary tale to tell and sell to investors, the corporate board and other executives.
Anyone, even youn
Re: (Score:2)
Slow down adopting? Hell no. Acting like this latest tech will cut all costs in half, cure cancer and suck your dick too? Hell yes.
Taking cloud as an example and me being a private cloud engineer, it's not that the tech is bad. It's great actually FOR CERTAIN USE CASES. Not all of them.
We have customers whose CDOs (I am told CTOs are out, now we have Chief Digital Officers in their twenties, fresh out of university) will put you out of the bidding race if your portfolio so much as contains on prem solutions
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously. But the hype loving fanbois have not gotten enough bloody noses yet to make that discussion possible.
Re:Is a technology stabilization movement needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I am suggesting that cartoons and sarcasm should be used for tech strategies going forward, but in this case, they are 100% accurate.
Re:Google "Cloud Repatriation" (Score:5, Funny)
Companies just noticed that cloud services are a bit like a marriage. It's easy to get into, but if you want out, it gets expensive and chances are good that half your stuff will go missing.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a very apt comparison. Unless you are very disciplined and knowledgeable, you cannot simply "move clouds" or go back on-prem. Fortunately, regulation, and KRITIS will make having a valid cloud replacement strategy mandatory. And if Microsoft fucks up a bit more (they will), it may make even being able to replace Microsoft mandatory. I have one audit customer that actually has a sound strategy for that and that is too few.
Re: (Score:2)
We run our own (huge) data center, so convincing our people that we should stay "at home" was easier, especially since we have our own cloud service (with blackjack. And hookers) so they can placate marketing with "yes, yes, we are doing this in the cloud" without even lying, but even here, some felt that urge to move stuff into AWS.
And yes, now we're having severe headaches.
Re: (Score:2)
but if you want out, it gets expensive
In the real world we call this "paying for infrastructure". The cost of leaving the cloud is not larger than the cost/benefit analysis of going into the cloud in the first place. I don't know why so many on Slashdot think the alternative to the cloud costs nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
The expense isn't in the infrastructure. That's peanuts. Quite frankly, the metal you need to haul your data back into the data center is pocket change. What really puts the money boot on your back is adaptation of your software, services, processes and of course the manpower you now suddenly need for maintenance.
The alternatives to the cloud are certainly not free. Actually, cloud services do have their niche. When I need sudden spikes of processing power, Lambda services beat on-prem server farms in prett
Re:Google "Cloud Repatriation" (Score:5, Insightful)
We've been seriously considering it at work. The problem is theres a whole generation of younger tech kids who have no idea what to even do with a rack mountable server and have no experience with it. Me, I've been racking linux boxes since the 90s, and miss the days when the worst outcome you could expect was a late night visit to the office because the idiot boss keeps trying to code on production. But for kids raised on NodeJS and Lambda, its alien technology.
So really what I wanna do is use one of the open source cloud systems to replicate a lambda type system on a pair of firebreathing AMD servers with some sort of interface that lets them use their skills while giving me the ability to get under the hood and do what I do best.
Also, it helps that our factory was literally a datacenter under its old owners so theres a tonne of fibre connectivity already in place. Hell they even left the backup generator/UPS system there. All the hard bits are already in place, we just gotta rack up some iron and get away from those awful $10K+ a month AWS fees.
Re: (Score:2)
My previous employer was a small software company, so couldn't justify running stuff themselves. We used AWS for some stuff (mostly things that we wanted to mess with), but all our "permanent" services were hosted in another (small) provider - for fractions of what it would cost in AWS. We used 4 VPNs to join the two together - it seemed to work well enough for our needs, but I'm sure a Direct Connect would do well too.
I can well imagine most shops being able to do the same thing, but perhaps with the perma
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is theres a whole generation of younger tech kids who have no idea what to even do with a rack mountable server and have no experience with it.
So you just discovered the whole sales point of going to the cloud in the first place: Inability to manage your own systems.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad if they can't handle a server anymore. I say that because server management has gotten about a thousand times easier than it was in the '90s. These days, so many servers have a built in iKVM with remote media capability. And not that Java based crap where whatever version of JRE you have is the wrong one (run anywhere my ass), it's HTML5 based and just works.
The old days where you used a script to make all of the network changes (but not configuration changes) with a time delayed reboot to back out
Re:Google "Cloud Repatriation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The smart ones will have been skeptical and never even moved into the cloud. I have several audit customers that stayed all on-prem and one that only moved non-critical stuff into the cloud as a test-balloon and does not seem to be likely to move anything critical in there with that experience. They all noticed that stiff gets much more expensive, they are suddenly dependent on whether the cloud provider does a good job, things get a lot more complex and you need a lot more people, often with expensive skills. Overall a decisive loss from a business perspective and also a loss with regard to complexity and KISS. For most businesses that are large enough to have their own IT people, the cloud really is a bad idea, nothing else. And for businesses even smaller, the only "cloud" that makes sense is the one of their local IT services provider.
Hype makes most people move with it (only about 10...15% independent thinkers in the human race that can see a hyped tech for what it is) and it often makes those pushing the hype a lot of money. But it rarely results in any really significant improvements.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but most compliance mandates require stuff to be on the cloud for redundancy.
Haven't seen that yet. Unless you're very small and even then it's still less expensive to do it without the cloud.
An AWS data center will never go down, even if there is a full out strategic thermonuclear war. Some data center at the back end of a shady office complex will.
FUD. Even the largest sites on the Internet have outages that includes AWS. If you are not paying for redundancy you don't have redundancy. Stability is about planing and budget. One solution doesn't solve every problem. I would say in general, if you invest the same budget in any large North American city you would spend a lot more on cloud to achieve the same results. Then again it's all in t
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but most compliance mandates require stuff to be on the cloud for redundancy.
Actually there are compliance mandates in various fields which require the data to remain on your own physical hardware, so you cannot rent space on someone else's server to store the data. In some cases compliance mandates also require that data remains under the jurisdiction of your own government which means you can't host with a foreign owned provider, or host on a datacenter located outside of your country.
You can achieve redundancy without using a cloud provider. Nothing to stop you hosting in multipl
Re: (Score:2)
Are you REALLY trying to tell us AWS has NEVER gone down?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure nearly everyone that was self hosting still is.
That entirely depends on if the price is right.
Nearly everyone gets offended when you have the unmitigated gall to charge money for many online services now, including apps, email, and web hosting. Why do you think so many businesses are hosted on social media? Because the price is right.
All these excuses about being “too difficult” have been around as long as the layman has. Building and maintaining a web/email server, is not a commoners task. Never was, and likely never will be.
Re: (Score:2)
But I heard the president say that coal miners can learn to code!
Re: Return? (Score:2)
Tell that to Geocities.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is underreported.
People WANT to buy adobe once and own it for life. You can no longer
M$ has raised the prices of their standalone office suite over the years leading up to the realease of their cloud services to make it seem competitive cost wise.
3rd part buisness apps that used to have standalone apps now are web based and cloud only
Its not consumer choice that is driving this, it is corporate greed
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I know I am.
Trust problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Trust problem (Score:5, Informative)
It used to be you needed nothing. Then you needed not to be an open relay. Then you couldn't be on a known residential dynamic IP block.
Now you have to make sure your ISP doesn't block email ports, have a static IP with a reverse DNS record, and set up SPF, DKIM, and DMARC.
Email is fundamentally insecure, so you really need these additional measures to apply even the smallest resistance to spam.
Re: Trust problem (Score:3)
DKIM, SPF, DMARC, Reverse DNS yes, but you can also send your mail with Amazon SES, mailgun, etc and gain a little reputation help.
Re: (Score:3)
Defeats the point of 'self hosting' tho.
Re: (Score:3)
Every isp should give you an outgoing relay. You can use that as the mail_relay_host/smtprelay etc.
Everything else in the setup should be the same.
Re: (Score:2)
> there is the fact that some blackhole list operator might have a fever dream of your IP address, and you get blackholed, and it becomes a Kafkaesque task to get off that list, if they even bother.
This is another response to the basic insecure nature of the system. Anyone can add a mail server to the Internet, and this includes spammers.
So, when a malicious actor is detected not only do they get blacklisted, but if the ISP isn't quick to respond they get their entire IP block blacklisted to pressure th
Re:Trust problem (Score:5, Informative)
"...and outgoing email from my ip is rejected."
If gmail has been rejecting your email, then be sure to read their requirements for a txt (SPF) record;
https://support.google.com/a/a... [google.com]
example; v=spf1 ip4:10.10.10.0/29 include:_spf.google.com ~all
Re: (Score:2)
And, unlike the assholes at gmail have fixed it, expect to get SPAM bounces instead of SPF errors if you do anything wrong. You need to get past the SPAM filter to see the SPF errors. To do that, I found that copying a page or two from Wikipedia works well. Just use a different one each time.
Re: (Score:2)
Email got broken to a ridiculous extent as far as self-hosting goes. Any IP you'd get from your ISP or from some server hosting, VPS, cloud, etc. provider is already in black listed range. If it isn't openly blocked it's silently black holed half of the time. If it isn't now it'll be next month.
There's a second layer of craziness going on, that even if you want to use something dedicated like Amazon's Simple Email Service and pay per email and have them take care of everything you'll have your application d
Re: (Score:2)
I've been running email for a year. The only provider I have issue with is Microsoft. The situtation there is I'm on their Data Saftey thing...they know I "own" the IP...my server meets the security requirements; but pretty soon it went from "we don't know why this is happening" to someone else jumping on going "our conversation is finished. we will not do anything about this situation."
Compaies providing the walled gardens want to force you to pay them.
Re: (Score:2)
I do host my own email as well, and in the last 10 years I have had one issue when the morons at gmail configured SPF like the complete idiots (and likely assholes) they are and made it mandatory (1 day to fix and now I know how to get past the gmail SPAM filters) and and one case where the idiots at some RBL blocked a complete segment of IPs instead of an individual one (resolved by my ISP in a day).
Re: (Score:2)
Who are "Responsible Parties"? I self-host email, too, and can say with confidence that nothing goes missing without log entries.
If my servers reject email, it's for specific, deliberate reasons, such as servers which use names that don't exist in DNS (Outlook had random machines doing this for years). Email from my servers isn't rejected, but some platforms put certain messages in to "spam", but we can't fix the stupidity behind some of those filters. For instance, I've corresponded with certain people the
Re: (Score:2)
And so for email, self hosting is utterly awful.
Funny how I have not noticed that while doing it. As usual, you are at the low end of the insight spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
"utterly" = "completely; absolutely; entirely"
You need to learn English.
I don't think that means what you think it means (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I don't think that means what you think it mea (Score:5, Interesting)
It looks like they are truly describing hosting yourself, with optional ipv6 tunnel provider for those stuck behind NAT. Admittedly more external dependency than is ideal, but unavoidable if the isp grants no sort of external address, or filters traffic to make it infeasible. A tunnel at least means you can be sure the "meat" of the service is under your control at least.
Real self-hosting (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't (just) about where the server resides, it's about control. Someone else's nearly fully-managed system running on your hardware using your Internet connection is not full self-hosting.
It's the worst of both worlds.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. One of the things they provide is an IPv6 tunnel for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if your 'self hosted' is 'cloud managed', then I could see the complaint. I know a lot of companies are going for that "even on premise is bricked without cloud" business model, and if this is that, then I'd be wary. Especially since I don't think deploying most self-hosted software is actually that hard and don't need a 'cloud seed' to help.
But yes, the tunnel aspect of it seems unavoidable for users without routable addresses. Though at least everyone I know with a vague interest in self hosting at
Self-hosting never left, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea may be being talked about again thanks to IPv6 removing a lot of connectivity blocks, but it won't make a comeback because of the same old reasons. Most people are on a residential ISP with limited upstream bandwidth and policies in place that prohibit running servers. The ISP has the ability to block ports even with IPv6, meaning they can make things like email simply Not Work (at least not easily and without support for non-standard port numbers on the client side). They can also deploy the threat of terminating your service entirely, making the risk too high for most people.
Re:Self-hosting never left, but... (Score:5, Informative)
This service is intended to solve those concerns. It's a Wireguard VPN service. You create a reverse tunnel to their PoP and receive a public/external IPv6 address. The only technical control that would block this would be if your ISP blocks outbound connections to the service's Wireguard listener port (default UDP/51820).
Re: (Score:2)
Their IP addresses have probably already been blocked by anti-spam blocklists and the like. Maybe marked as malware in web browser protection and anti-virus databases too. Happens to every VPN service that allows operating any kind of server or opening any port.
Even if they somehow eliminated the malicious users, there are plenty of incompetent server operators who will get hacked.
That's the real reason self hosting is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Their IP addresses have probably already been blocked by anti-spam blocklists and the like
Self-hosting is about far more than sending an email.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, your web server will get blacklisted too. You could potentially run a Mastodon instance or something like that, but even then I wouldn't be surprised if people's AV software blocked it.
You could maybe run your own cloud stuff, but I'd advise against it unless you really know what you are doing and are willing to put the time into keeping it secure. I'd suggest putting it all behind a VPN instead, unless you need instant sync and can't wait for the VPN or when you get home for that to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, your web server will get blacklisted too.
I've never come across a scenario where my home hosted server was blocked by anything web wise. I don't think blind blacklisting of ip ranges is a significant thing in web client scenarios.
For SMTP, absolutely this is a thing, where SMTP has basically become a relatively small cohort of servers and everyone else is blacklisted by default.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, your web server will get blacklisted too.
No they won't. You're talking out of your arse. Email is a general concern for self-hosting applications. For many other cases there's no real large scale program to block something. Sure a few shitty US based ISPs still act like it's the late 90s and don't want you hosting a server, but in most of the world that is simply not an issue.
Web servers especially are blocked at worst on an end user basis. While I have no ability to host an email server, and my IP is actively on a blacklist for email all other th
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I do for a number of things. To log into my home network via SSH, I have a small instance on AWS that I SSH and use that to jump to an internal box. The internal boxes use AutoSSH to SSH to the instance and make a tunnel, so logging from the instance back to the internal machines is easy. This works behind layers of NAT and CG-NET as well.
The future of self-hosting will be services available by connection brokers. Tailscale comes to mind, and Synology/QNAP's connections to one's home NAS is
Unnecessary (Score:3)
"Host your websites, manage your data, and unlock the true potential of your personal technology with your own dedicated external IP and your computer."
That business smells like a scam.
You can rent a basic Linux server instance online for well under $10 a month and it will have both V4 and V6 IP addresses. Even the uninitiated can set up a Wordpress site like that by just following some instructions that are available on dozens of internet sites. If you want to have the box running under your desk or behind any cable modem to be available on the internet you can just use one of the many DDNS services.
Re:Unnecessary (Score:4, Interesting)
Thumbs up - Just as an exercise during covid downtime, I wanted to see if I can replace all of my Google/MS/Email/etc. cloud services with self-hosted ones. I did, spun it all up on linode for dirt cheap and it's all under my control now.
I know reddit's gone to shit but the r/selfhosted sub-reddit [reddit.com] and this big list of self-hosted replacements [github.com] was really useful!
Re: (Score:2)
>> this big list of self-hosted replacements
Wow, that's a great list of resources. Thanks!
Re: (Score:3)
That business smells like a scam.
A service providing Wireguard with unique external IPV6 is a scam? How so? Is the concept of the VPN itself a scam?
Also rent != self hosting. If I am talking about self hosting, I'm not remotely interested in what you want to "rent" me on your hosted systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Think the point is that the pricing isn't really cheaper than the cheapest cloud instances. In fact, you can still find free tiers that are able to serve a lot of self hosting needs. If your needs are light and have nothing to do with your actual house, then the free tier is a much better deal, as your service is likely to be more available than your home innternet connection.
Now once you have need of even a relatively low end desktop grade system, the tunnel becomes *much* cheaper than a cloud instance.
Als
Re: (Score:2)
Think the point is that the pricing isn't really cheaper than the cheapest cloud instances.
And I think you missed the point of self-hosting. It isn't about price.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is about price, and the comment you responded to shows a cheaper (or free) option to do the same thing that this service does better than this service does (i.e., you don't need to do the IPv6 translation dance, but you can if you want to.) Either option lets you self-host on your own hardware in your own home and make that installation available from the outside through a relay on the internet. Isn't your own VPS relay more self-hosted than a relay made by someone else? And did you note that it'
Re: (Score:2)
>> A service providing Wireguard with unique external IPV6 is a scam?
Assuming you have some kind of server sitting behind your home internet router, you can set up DDNS access to it for free using a service such as these;
https://www.gnutomorrow.com/be... [gnutomorrow.com]
I have 3 of them running at my house. They have secure TLS certificates from Let's Encrypt, and I didn't have to pay IPv6rs $10/month in order to get that working.
Re: (Score:2)
I can use Pikapods as well, and they can be pretty reasonable in price, due to using containers (not VMs). Not sure on IPs, but one gets a hostname with that, which is useful for small Wordpress sites. For backups, one can use software on the WordPress layer, and some NAS makers like QNAP even make plugins to allow the WordPress site to be saved off to your local storage for safekeeping.
For a file server that I am sharing stuff with someone else, I just stand up Nextcloud, enable server encryption, throw
Re: (Score:2)
You can rent a basic Linux server instance online for well under $10 a month and it will have both V4 and V6 IP addresses.
Where at?
Re: (Score:3)
>> Where at?
https://www.digitalocean.com/ [digitalocean.com]
A server instance running your choice of Linux with 1 CPU, 1G RAM, 25GB disk, and 1000GB/month of network is $6/month. You get full SSH root access, and they will back it up regularly for an extra $1/month.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since this offer relies, apparently, on a subscription, going to a simple-ish virtual server somewhere is a choice.
When I consider changing ISPs, my current cable service blocking the obvious ports (80,443, etc), I think of saving about $40/mo outright, and having a virtual server 'out there' for even $20/mo is a win. BUT, I still do not have my home media/file server available everywhere.
So it's a Wireguard VPN for me. Bit of a nuisance, but I have an external POP that will let me.
Re: (Score:2)
>> my current cable service blocking the obvious ports
Does your ISP block ports? I didn't know that was a thing. I bought my cable modem off of Amazon (made sure it is compatible with the service) and it doesn't block anything. I installed a router behind it that provides wireless and wired internet in the house. I incorporates a firewall and it lets me do port forwarding as required.
Re: (Score:2)
Your ISP is not my ISP. But if you forward ports, why? Can you just jit your home server via HTTPS directly, or do you forward a port to it for external access?
My service, Cox, blocks ports 80,443, 25, 143, 135, 136-139, 445, 1433, 1434, 1900. They do not wish to support customer-operated email and web servers,
for what should be obvious reasons, nor access to well-known services that are exploited often, such as MS-SQL and NetBIOS/SMB, similarly. I can live with that. BUT - my fixed wireless alternatives,
Re: (Score:2)
>> But if you forward ports, why?
I've got one IP address visible on the internet that is associated with my cable modem. There's a router behind that which supplies IP addresses via DHCP for the devices on my internal home network, but those are not visible to the external internet. So if I want to get to port 443 on an internal server from the outside world I have to set up forwarding that will route incoming 443 traffic to the internal IP address of that server. And I have to make the internal IP ad
Everybody self hosts! (Score:2)
It isn't just the nerds that self host. Many many many years ago western digital started letting everybody self host their files and let them be available anywhere! They're so good at it, users have never had to update their OS at all.
Adoption (slightly off-topic) (Score:3)
from the site; "Join IPv6rs to upgrade your computer or mobile device with a reachable, externally Visible IPv6 (VIP). With over 40% of the planet already on board, the decentralized internet of the people is here."
I know there's an element of spin here (which is fine), but I work for a telco selling lots of fiber circuits to commercial customers and I always ask a new client 'would you be interested in some IPv6 address space to go with your shiny new circuit?'
98%+ of the time, the answer is No, even though we charge for IPv4 space and we provide IPv6 space for free.
It's habit. It's easier. It's planned for the future. Maybe I'll call you in a year about it. I'm too busy to take the time to learn about it. Whatever.
There is still real resistance out there to IPv6.
I wonder what IPv4 space monthly charges are going to look like 18-24 months from now...
Re: (Score:2)
There is still real resistance out there to IPv6.
Speaking only for myself, I had to google how to disable IP6 on my Ubuntu workstation, because otherwise IP6 mitigated the benefits of using an international VPN. Now without IP6, Google thinks I am where I want Google to think I am.
Re: (Score:2)
You used an antiquated VPN that didn't provide IPv6.
Don't disable IPv6, get a VPN service that's not stuck in the 1980s.
Why isn't this marked "Advertisement" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it smells like an ad, and reads like an ad.
Yunohost (Score:2)
Cool (Score:2)
I'm struggling to understand what this actually is, but reading between the lines of the marketing copy, it seems like this is more than just another VPN. If it actually gives you a unique and routable IP address, this is pretty relevant to my interests... specifically around "facilitating seamless peer-to-peer (P2P) communications."
Free Alternatives (Score:4, Informative)
There are also some free alternatives: https://tunnelbroker.net/ [tunnelbroker.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Tunnelbroker requires you to not be stuck behind NAT, making it a non starter for a lot of users.
Re: (Score:2)
Most wired connections to the home, the target audience for self hosting of services, are not behind NAT.
If you happen to live in a developed country and are using an incumbent provider that has a lot of legacy address space.
Any provider that's not been around 20+ years is unlikely to get enough IPv4 space to provide one to every customer, so you will be behind CGNAT. The newer companies tend to be the ones providing fibre to the home, while incumbents will often still be offering ADSL or similar copper delivered services.
The hurricane electric tunnelbroker isn't accessible over IPv6, as it's intended to provi
Re: (Score:2)
Note that if you have a public IPv4 address, you likely don't have use for IPv6rs at all. It's only useful for people hopelessly NATed or firewalled. If you have a routable, reachable address, you don't need ipv6 per se, as every client will be able to reach you. I've never seen a network client that purports "internet access" that can't access an IPv4-only site, including some 'pure ipv6' networks I've been on.
So if Tunnelbroker will work for you, you don't need it for self hosting in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm going to go off-spec here:
You don't actually have to limit your v6 splitting to /64 - that is only if you want 100% stateless configuration. If you're in a situation where you need more subnets, you can go smaller; but you lose stateless configuration. You can replace it with static or DHCPv6.
The other problem is that tunnelbroker isn't 100% reliable. I have native v6 on my main VPS, my home connection, and I have a tunnelbroker v6 on my mail server (as it doesn't have the option for v6 natively). I
Self-hosting is a PITA for the Average Joe (Score:2)
A couple decades ago I used to be the guy who would probably jump on this article and roll my own solution.
Older me is ... perhaps wiser, choosing not to do this? There is the work that goes into setting it up. You really need to understand what you are doing, from a security perspective and in terms of backup solutions. Plus some impractical work-arounds on your mobiles etc. that _will_ be more cumbersome that just using the stuff that is hardwired into the Android or iOS ecosystem.
Going with some ready-to
Re: (Score:2)
>Roll your own? You need to constantly pay attention to upgrades, new security issues, etc
I ran an Exchange 5.0 server for years longer than was advisable. I think the only thing I had to do was figure out how to stop it from being an open relay.
Then again, that was before you'd get hit with port scans the instant you connected to the Internet, and when NAT was enough of a 'firewall' to protect you.
Re: (Score:2)
Cloud services also get retired/changed and require manual intervention. For instance AWS Lambda services routinely upgrade the runtime environments and the old ones become deprecated/unsupported. Although your scripts can continue running in the old versions its not recommended, and updating them to use the newer runtimes can often involve significant effort.
If you're just using the cloud to host a virtual machine, then everything inside the virtual machine is still your responsibility.
Hosting something li
If you're trying to promote IPv6, that isn't how. (Score:2)
Everybody who should and could self-host is already doing it. The problems really aren't that grave and IPv6 isn't really necessary, even if you don't have a public IPv4 address on your internet connection. Offering something on IPv6 only is a non-starter, even if you do it just for yourself when you're on the road, because you have no control over the IPv6-readiness of the internet connections you're going to use at someone else's place. "40% on board" means 60% not on board. Especially on public wifi, you
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody who should and could self-host is already doing it.
Speak for yourself. Many of us are stuck in all manner of problematic situations. Those with CG-NAT may or may not have routable IPv6 addresses. Some of us can't test IPv6 since we're provided IPv4 addresses without IPv6 connectivity. Some of us are self hosting right now and expect to lose the ability as we've been given notice that we're going to be migrated to CG-NAT.
No, many people who want to do self-hosting have problems which need to be worked around.
Re: (Score:3)
You should have read the rest of the comment too, not just the first sentence. With an attention span that short, you definitely shouldn't self-host.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean...the ability to work around this has existed for years. It's nothing new. The people serious about self-hosting have it in their playbook.
The people that aren't technical but want to just "run stuff" for the sake of running stuff want a one-click and go solution.
You sound like the latter; someone who wants to self-host because it's cool...or maybe you don't want to pay $20/year for a basic VPS that while not fully self-hosted...is still under a large amount of your control. There are also VPN provid
Re: (Score:2)
Depends where you go, most public wifi i found in bangkok (bars restaurants etc) had ipv6, as did the mobile data service, it was only the occasional wifi which lacked ipv6 - usually because they were using some ancient equipment.
For the few cases where wifi lacked v6 i complained about it, and then used mobile data (which was faster anyway because invariably the non v6 wifi was either an ancient access point (think 802.11g or 802.11b), or backed by something like a copper adsl line).
blipvert (Score:2)
this post feels like a blipvert for a paid service....
right to your own ip address (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the way routing works. It would be hard to take another subnet to another network. Even with IPv4 there are limitations. The telephone system works a bit differently.
Synology (Score:2)
The Biggies won't like this (Score:2)
I self-host my personal stuff... web site, email, etc. I have good delivability for my email, but to achieve that I had to make sure my server was hosted at a reputable company and set up proper SPF, DKIM and DMARC. This is non-trivial for folks who don't understand email well.
Furthermore, there's always the threat of Hotmail/Google/etc. blackholing my email "just because". Their anti-spam algorithms are notoriously secret and convoluted.
I suspect that if enough people or companies start self-hosting
Another IPv6 only host... (Score:2)
These guys are a dime a dozen...I swear. "Oh, it's time to modernize. You don't need IPv4 anymore..."
Yes, you do; because so many networks aren't fully dual-stack yet. Everyone I know who has had a v6 only server has regretted it.
peak utility was around 10-15 years ago (Score:2)
Pretty much every article now is a fluffy attempt to take some trivial feature and spin it into a new type of sliced bread.
The "journalists" don't understand what they are saying, and the tech is just a reason to waste ink on the topic.
So every article is a veiled attempt to sell you something, and every new feature is just a way to get between you and what you (think) you want... then once you're capti
Deploying self-hosting is one thing.... (Score:2)
mantaining it, on the other hand, is quite a different task...
And, as far as I understand, this solution does not address that topic (yet).
I hope that, in the (not to distant) future, this last point get's addresses, so that self-hoting becomes a reality.
But, as of today, and to answer tyhe headline question:
Is selfhosting getting mainstream?
NO, not yet.
It does what now? (Score:2)
WTF does this even mean?
"from Mastodon which federates with Meta's Threads to Nextcloud which provides an enterprise-level, self-hosted alternative to the big-name collaboration suites."
I felt like I was watching a drug ad on TV filled with nothing but jargon than only a doctor who deals with relevant patients would understand.
Someone explain self hosting (Score:2)
Self hosting what?