4 ms·

most ISPs in Australia offer a static IPv4 for a monthly fee ($5 to $10 a month).

by dannyw 5y ago

opk 5y ago
If you're going to pay $10 a month, you might as well pay for a VPS instead and connect up to it with wireguard, nebula or tailscale. Especially if paying means dynamic IPv4 that isn't behind CGNAT rather than an actual static IPv4 address.
- dannyw 5y ago
  Paying gives you a static IPv4 that remains the same for as long as you're subscribed. It's not a bad option if you're already paying for gigabit, sadly nearly impossible to get symmetrical gigabit here, but still for an extra $5 or $10 a month it's ok.
jeroenhd 5y ago
That's an ISP problem, though. For that price it's better to just rent a VPS for hosting/proxying traffic. A wireguard tunnel to your actual home server and an nginx proxy at a $4 VPS provide more options than just a guaranteed static IP. Hell, if you can nab some capacity, you can use free VPS solutions like the one AWS and Google provide for a year, or the one Oracle providers forever if you can live with the 50mbps uplink (you get 2 servers so maybe you could tunnel that into 100mbps?) and the annoying Web UI for setting them up. Luckily, you don't need a static IP address in most use cases if you set up dyndns, as long as the IP is exclusively used by you and doesn't change too often (e.g. every week or month or so).
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > For that price it's better to just rent a VPS for hosting/proxying traffic. Why would it be better? It would be more complex technically, and certainly less resource efficient. Am i missing something?
  - jeroenhd 5y ago
    It would be more complex, but you'd have a lot more flexibility. Your ISP might not be able to deflect DDoS attacks as efficiently as a remote proxy, you can set up your own caching with a high-speed connection, and you can secure your home network a bit better by only allowing the remote proxy access to your home server. You'd also save costs moving some of the hosting to the cloud while you're at it, be use you don't don't need to pay a separate electricity bill for a cloud VPS. Plus, VPS storage is usually more reliable than a custom RAID config, as is the power grid around data centers and the internet connection itself. If you're going for efficency or simplicity then you're totally right, but if you're trying to get value for money I think a cheap VPS would be better.

most ISPs in Australia offer a static IPv4 for a monthly fee ($5 to $10 a month).

by dannyw 5y ago

most ISPs in Australia offer a static IPv4 for a monthly fee ($5 to $10 a month).

opk 5y ago

If you're going to pay $10 a month, you might as well pay for a VPS instead and connect up to it with wireguard, nebula or tailscale. Especially if paying means dynamic IPv4 that isn't behind CGNAT rather than an actual static IPv4 address.

dannyw 5y ago
Paying gives you a static IPv4 that remains the same for as long as you're subscribed. It's not a bad option if you're already paying for gigabit, sadly nearly impossible to get symmetrical gigabit here, but still for an extra $5 or $10 a month it's ok.

jeroenhd 5y ago

That's an ISP problem, though. For that price it's better to just rent a VPS for hosting/proxying traffic. A wireguard tunnel to your actual home server and an nginx proxy at a $4 VPS provide more options than just a guaranteed static IP. Hell, if you can nab some capacity, you can use free VPS solutions like the one AWS and Google provide for a year, or the one Oracle providers forever if you can live with the 50mbps uplink (you get 2 servers so maybe you could tunnel that into 100mbps?) and the annoying Web UI for setting them up. Luckily, you don't need a static IP address in most use cases if you set up dyndns, as long as the IP is exclusively used by you and doesn't change too often (e.g. every week or month or so).

southerntofu 5y ago
> For that price it's better to just rent a VPS for hosting/proxying traffic. Why would it be better? It would be more complex technically, and certainly less resource efficient. Am i missing something?
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  It would be more complex, but you'd have a lot more flexibility. Your ISP might not be able to deflect DDoS attacks as efficiently as a remote proxy, you can set up your own caching with a high-speed connection, and you can secure your home network a bit better by only allowing the remote proxy access to your home server. You'd also save costs moving some of the hosting to the cloud while you're at it, be use you don't don't need to pay a separate electricity bill for a cloud VPS. Plus, VPS storage is usually more reliable than a custom RAID config, as is the power grid around data centers and the internet connection itself. If you're going for efficency or simplicity then you're totally right, but if you're trying to get value for money I think a cheap VPS would be better.