Post AWoL7x3DChM5KpJhGS by astraluma@tech.lgbt
 (DIR) More posts by astraluma@tech.lgbt
 (DIR) Post #AWoL7vNLQsGs8gikMq by astraluma@tech.lgbt
       2023-06-17T12:50:04Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @noracodes at-home hosting is pretty much a pipe dream until IPv4 dies.The rest of that is maybe solvable, although free outgoing email with easy configuration is tough.
       
 (DIR) Post #AWoL7wKXslct6IQ1dw by chrysn@chaos.social
       2023-06-17T13:02:50Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @astraluma @noracodes As much as I'm all for letting v4 die in favor of #IPv6 yesterday: That's not the only option. If more services had SRV style port flexibility, then PCP (RFC6887) and a DNS server with proper dyndns should suffice.
       
 (DIR) Post #AWoL7wlqFHScSxBpBo by astraluma@tech.lgbt
       2023-06-17T12:54:00Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @noracodes if your goal isn't at-home, it's pretty straightforward to roll all that into a managed hosting platform that's like "$x for domain, email, and hosting apps up to this amount". Modern container stuff makes high availability and utilization easier, and you trust all the software running.
       
 (DIR) Post #AWoL7x3DChM5KpJhGS by astraluma@tech.lgbt
       2023-06-17T13:04:21Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @chrysn @noracodes CGNAT exists, and it exists because of IPv4 exhaustion.
       
 (DIR) Post #AWoL7y0ldGzgJXBG5o by chrysn@chaos.social
       2023-06-17T13:08:36Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @astraluma @noracodes Yes, but I don't see that that'd necessarily stop PCP.
       
 (DIR) Post #AWoL7ylYpIQMef4d1s by tschaefer@ipv6.social
       2023-06-18T09:02:11Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @chrysn @astraluma @noracodes PCP is ugly.
       
 (DIR) Post #AWomoKQhMz4alfjYTg by chrysn@chaos.social
       2023-06-18T14:12:25Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @tschaefer @astraluma @noracodes In an ideal world there wouldn't be on-by-default firewalls, and hosts would opt in to being firewalled, eg. using an RFC8520 MUD. But as long as we have them, PCP is the prettiest remedy I know of (at any rate it's better than what uPnP had for that purpose).
       
 (DIR) Post #AWonlulfuMlKYRxT1s by tschaefer@ipv6.social
       2023-06-18T14:23:12Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @chrysn @astraluma @noracodes To be more precise, your idea with PCP on IPv4 CGN with "proper" DNS (srv...) is ugly.PCP in a IPv6 environment maybe useful, but it depends on the details.
       
 (DIR) Post #AWooCagYgNRo5YHjge by chrysn@chaos.social
       2023-06-18T14:27:59Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @tschaefer @astraluma @noracodes Yes. In the v6 settings it would also help if the client may rely on getting the same port -- w/o NAT there is no reason to change it anyway. (Spec says never to rely on it; may still be a practical thing to do).