ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services
-
Except I'm in rural Australia. Star link is objectively the best option.
It sucks that rural Australia’s part of the NBN got kneecapped down to Skymuster. I’ve played with Starlink quite a while ago and unless it’s really heavy rain it works really well up to the point of being able to stream games on GeForce NOW. Obviously a fast wired connection is preferable but as you say Starlink really is the only good option for a lot of people.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
I think you need to take the tin foil hat off mate.
IPv4 in many places has RAN OUT. No more, zilch.
Most people can get a fully functioning CGNAT address and surf the IPv4 web just fine.
Most VPS providers will give you IPv4 and IPv6 just fine.
So really the only issue is for the 10-20% of people who need to host an online service, security camera or online game system that doesn't have a server or rendezvous service.
-
use a cheap $5/mo VPS that exists purely as your gateway host
Now, why so expensive?
https://racknerdtracker.com/?sort=price
Disclaimer: I never used Racknerd (nor any other VPS).Thank you sir!
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
Vodafone gave me an IPv4 in Germany no problem. I asked and they gave it to me. They said it's not static, but it hasn't changed for me in years.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
It's a pain but also it's no surprise that DNS and ipv6 are premium when ipv4 and dynamic IP works so well for 99% of us. Even if you wanna host something publicly there are totally free services and software tools to cover most if not all caveats of not using ipv6 (for now).
I have selfhosted for years and only paid for a domain name recently.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
Most users have no use for a static adress space. Those are usually business or power-user needs.
This you are classified as that. A power-user. -
I basically do exactly this, but I am running the reverse proxy on my home computer: the VPS is literally just acting as a proxy, for which I use wireguard to tunnel the connection. So far it's worked great, though initial setup was a pain.
So you essentially have a DMZ between your VPS and home network that is divided by your reverse proxy?
-
use a cheap $5/mo VPS that exists purely as your gateway host
Now, why so expensive?
https://racknerdtracker.com/?sort=price
Disclaimer: I never used Racknerd (nor any other VPS).Didn't dig in too far into the options, but those prices are crazy low. Thanks for pointing us there.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
<<<< has ipv4 static ip to my house. I do pay a small premium though. Like $15 bucks.
-
Most users have no use for a static adress space. Those are usually business or power-user needs.
This you are classified as that. A power-user.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.
-
I think you need to take the tin foil hat off mate.
IPv4 in many places has RAN OUT. No more, zilch.
Most people can get a fully functioning CGNAT address and surf the IPv4 web just fine.
Most VPS providers will give you IPv4 and IPv6 just fine.
So really the only issue is for the 10-20% of people who need to host an online service, security camera or online game system that doesn't have a server or rendezvous service.
You can get IPv6 addresses. What you can't get, in many cases, is a static IPv6 prefix assignment.
CGNAT is not fine. Its problems are simply hidden from most people. ISPs have to have more equipment that's less reliable, increases latency, and is potentially a bandwidth bottleneck.
-
Is there a more detailed guide to this practice and the pros/cons?
This is @[email protected]‘s work, not mine - but it’s pretty similar to how I’d set things up:
https://wiki.gardiol.org/doku.php?id=networking%3Assh_tunnel
-
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.
-
Vodafone gave me an IPv4 in Germany no problem. I asked and they gave it to me. They said it's not static, but it hasn't changed for me in years.
Xfinity in the states is like that too. Technically I don't have a static but it's only changed twice in 4 years or so.
Once was during a really really bad storm which took power down in my state for days so I don't blame them, and the other one was when they did work on my local node but they sent out an email and a letter before hand lol
-
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.
. . . nobody at home actually runs VOIP . . .
Plenty of people used Skype and Vonage. Both were subverted because they have to assume NAT is there.
. . . quick game servers don’t need static . . .
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.
-
use a cheap $5/mo VPS that exists purely as your gateway host
Now, why so expensive?
https://racknerdtracker.com/?sort=price
Disclaimer: I never used Racknerd (nor any other VPS)."JUST $10.28/YEAR - WOW!!"
Laughed out loud at that, and I'll have to give this a look. Currently I just use nginx and duckdns to expose my home IP for my self hosted stuff. -
This is @[email protected]‘s work, not mine - but it’s pretty similar to how I’d set things up:
https://wiki.gardiol.org/doku.php?id=networking%3Assh_tunnel
Really appreciated the reference!
Good to know my wiki is of any use to somebody.
-
. . . nobody at home actually runs VOIP . . .
Plenty of people used Skype and Vonage. Both were subverted because they have to assume NAT is there.
. . . quick game servers don’t need static . . .
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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
-
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:
- More expensive to operate
- Less reliable
- Slower
- A point for NSA eavesdropping (which almost certainly happened)
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.
And at least in the US (in single family homes) its crazy unlikely that your router is behind any NAT
Your router has NAT. That's the problem. CGNAT is another problem. My C&C: Generals issues did not have CGNAT.
-
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:
- More expensive to operate
- Less reliable
- Slower
- A point for NSA eavesdropping (which almost certainly happened)
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.
And at least in the US (in single family homes) its crazy unlikely that your router is behind any NAT
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?
