When Your ISP Won't Give You a Static IP | Hacker News Reader

When Your ISP Won't Give You a Static IP

inlets.dev

24 pointsalexellisuk25 comments

This is an ad for inlets, the author's VPN management product.

Anyone looking for an open reverse proxy should checkout frp[0].

I stumbled on frp and inlets some time back and frp had an amazing feature set yet I had never heard of it.

I'm subject to CGNAT, my ISP will charge for an IPv4 address (but only £5 p/m) and I like to host random things but I'm in no way interested in paying $25 a month for that.

For the tickering/testing I want to do (a single IP is fine), a more reasonable alternative is wireguard and a cheapo VM. Or a managed version of that because sometimes life is too short: https://hoppy.network

There are probably plenty of other similar solutions using other VPN technologies, none of which got a mention in this advertisement.

If you need a vm/instance/container at a cloud provider, then why not just host your stuff there?

could see it if you want to do a lot of spinning up and spinning down environments. You would have to pay for every container. At my house, ignoring the cost of power as my server is always running, it's free to spin up a new vm for how ever long I want/need it for

Powerful VMs can get pricey let month, but old hardware has already been paid for.

The article mentions this - the ability to access devices in the home beyond hosting a website/etc.

If you actually read it this is just one giant advertisement.

... And? It clearly lays out the problem and several solutions, one of which is his open source product.

Nebula + Caddy and a $5 cloud VM works well for me

A dynamic dns would solve that.

I'd prefer it be a human right to have real access to the Internet, this includes such "privileges" as a public routable IP, and the ability to send and receive E-Mail.

It can't be a human right. There are less IPV4 addresses than there are humans.

Funny thing is, the article said nothing about IPv4, and doesn't mention IPv6 at all...

Aren't there ISPs that provide IPv6 addresses for consumer accounts?

Yes. My ISP hands out a /64, which RIPE apparently considers best practice: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690#4-1-1---64-p...

That's for the WAN Link - the network between your router and the ISP's infrastructure. For your local networks RIPE recommends ISPs assign each end user a /48 or /56:

> However, /64 is not sustainable, it doesn't allow customer subnetting, and it doesn't follow IETF recommendations of “at least” multiple /64s per customer.

and more ipv6 than there are atoms in the universe.

10^38 < 10^80 (and that's just the observable universe)

I'm generally in favour of an expansive view of rights but this is ridiculous. And you're not going to be given the right to spam: residential addresses will stay on the blocklists or email will be abandoned.

It's an interesting position to take, that preferring not to have your mail on some other physical location than your home must mean you're a spammer... I guess you use a service to recieve your physical letters too ? Because having an actual mailbox at your house is weird?

My E-Mail will always be hosted on a physical server that I own, that is located in my home, and I'll fight nail and tooth to keep it that way. It used to be quite common, so much so, in fact, that my first ISP sent a letter apologizing for blocking outgoing port 25, and detailing how to access their relay box.

Recieving? Sure. It's sending that the blocklists are for.

Yeah, because everyone in the world want to be able to receive emails and not answer them.. Also, I'm getting my mails to their destinations just fine, from my home server, from my home internet, DKIM has made it a lot nicer, even gmail has never even once flagged me.

Dynamic DNS does not help when you are behind CGNAT.

TFA addresses that explicitly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com