1124
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
1124 points (100.0% liked)
Selfhosted
44782 readers
578 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:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hot take here but not wrong
No, it's still wrong.
We have ways to do NAT traversal and hole punching on consumer routers. Failing that, UPnP and port forwarding exist. Or, god forbid, IPv6.
In the rare case that literally none of those are an option, they would have to use TURN to relay between an intermediary. That is a reasonable case to ask the user to pay for their bandwidth usage, but they don't have to be greedy fuckers by making everyone pay for it.
This is enshittification and corporate greed. Nothing more, nothing less.
Reading about NAT Traversal and all that nonsense makes me want to start out my own ISP and we just configure things to be good because the corporate assholes clearly haven't. Imagine how much better things could be if hosting stuff from your home internet connection was just a thing you could do with no drama
If anything is to blame for that, it's the lack of momentum behind IPv6. We're out of IPv4, so NAT is inevitable, and IPv6 doesn't have enough inertia for single-stack to be viable (certainly wouldn't be described as "no drama" at least).
The fact that people still try to do bullshit like Nat on IPv6 is completely crazy. It's like they've never heard of the idea of a stateful firewall and just want to recreate bad old patterns again, combine with the fact that many internet service providers still don't allow you to host anything from your home connection. We need to fix all of that of an IPv6 first Network. Ipv4 is several layers of exhausted by now so it should be considered deprecated but for some reason isn't
A big part of IPv4's persistence I think is that people insist that IPv6 is complicated, but then refuse to learn it or think outside their IPv4-brain. It's just different enough that it's easier to stay in v4, even if it requires a million hackjob fixes to keep around.
I haven't really messed around if the intricacies of computer networking but the only downside I personally encountered to use an IPv6 is that it's a bit harder to memorize the IP addresses but I usually copy paste those anyways so it doesn't matter. People use names for stuff anyways so why use bare ips?
They make a product. It's not just the cost of infrastructure.
They have developers and other employees
And this isn't a new feature they're adding. Remote streaming was already implemented and generally available to users.
I don't discount there being a cost in maintaining code over time, but it's not as though they have to spend any significant employee time on improving it. They already support UPnP and NAT-PMP to have the clients connect directly to the self-hosted servers.
It would be nice if they added NAT hole punching on top of that, but it's evidently good enough to work as-is in its current form. If they're not even running relays to support more tricky networks (which the linked support article has no mention of), keeping this feature free costs them literally nothing extra.