3 ms·

> It sounds like it, from what I understand, you're saying that each application would connect to a service like CloudFlare to open a tunnel to itself, right?

> It sounds like it, from what I understand, you're saying that each application would connect to a service like CloudFlare to open a tunnel to itself, right? That would be ideal. But you could also have a GUI program that manages mapping tunnels to ports for apps that don't have built-in support. > No, I mean "running an application or library that knows how to open a port/tunnel". Ah that makes more sense. Yeah you're correct that is something that has to be added, but it's as easy as installing any other app, which is much easier than buying a new router, switching to an ISP that supports IPv6, etc. > The point about DynDNS stands, but you still need some DNS even in the tunneling case If the tunneling is offered by the same service that sells domains, this can be much more streamlined to the point where it's unnecessary for the user to understand DNS. That's what I'm working towards with TakingNames.io[0]. > Same as you'd solve it in the tunneling case, you'd use a service that can absorb the DDoS. If you're routing through a 3rd-party anyway, why not tunnel and gain all the additional benefits? > I think we've mixed up too many things in the discussion I agree. I didn't want to leave any of your questions hanging, but if you want to continue the discussion feel free to drop anything you find uninteresting. > p2p lets you choose the port numbers (you can't choose whatever port you want for your tunnel, because all users have to share an IP) This is not a bad point. I do wish DNS had a way to specify ports in records. However, this is essentially solved by SNI routing. It does have the limitation of forcing you to use TLS for everything, but I don't think that's too big of a problem for now. To be clear, I wish we had IPv6/UPnP everywhere and things worked the way you're describing, but I don't see it happening for many years to come. I'm betting on tunneling for the next decade or so. [0]: https://takingnames.io/blog/introducing-takingnames-io https://takingnames.io/blog/introducing-takingnames-io

stavros 5y ago
> That would be ideal. But you could also have a GUI program that manages mapping tunnels to ports for apps that don't have built-in support. Right, this sounds basically like what the firewall does in the p2p case. > which is much easier than buying a new router, switching to an ISP that supports IPv6, etc. Yes, if you can't just open a port, a tunnel is easier, true. > If you're routing through a 3rd-party anyway, why not tunnel and gain all the additional benefits? Well, you wouldn't be routing through a third party. DDoSes are costly and you usually don't need to protect against them if you're a home user. > I do wish DNS had a way to specify ports in records. That's what SRV records are for, no? > but I don't see it happening for many years to come Hmm, I don't think we need it everywhere, just where people care to use it, but maybe. I'm not as pessimistic, as my home ISP gives me a (fairly static? I've never actually checked) IPv4 where I opened a bunch of ports, but it would certainly be better if each of my home devices could be addressable from the internet. TakingNames is an interesting idea, though I'd have to think a bit more about it to tell if I'd find it useful :P The current method of just opening a port on my router has worked extremely well for me so far!

stavros 5y ago

> That would be ideal. But you could also have a GUI program that manages mapping tunnels to ports for apps that don't have built-in support. Right, this sounds basically like what the firewall does in the p2p case. > which is much easier than buying a new router, switching to an ISP that supports IPv6, etc. Yes, if you can't just open a port, a tunnel is easier, true. > If you're routing through a 3rd-party anyway, why not tunnel and gain all the additional benefits? Well, you wouldn't be routing through a third party. DDoSes are costly and you usually don't need to protect against them if you're a home user. > I do wish DNS had a way to specify ports in records. That's what SRV records are for, no? > but I don't see it happening for many years to come Hmm, I don't think we need it everywhere, just where people care to use it, but maybe. I'm not as pessimistic, as my home ISP gives me a (fairly static? I've never actually checked) IPv4 where I opened a bunch of ports, but it would certainly be better if each of my home devices could be addressable from the internet. TakingNames is an interesting idea, though I'd have to think a bit more about it to tell if I'd find it useful :P The current method of just opening a port on my router has worked extremely well for me so far!