Te> There price on VPN servers is good if you want to run a very small bbs
 Te> systems. --- CNet/5

i duno, i think it sounds kind of lame to run a bbs on a VPS .. when a user
goes for the 'page sysop' command you should be able to break in to chat
because you heard the machine beeping at you.

even when i had dialup internet back in the day the bbs worked just fine for
two nodes (granted i paid my isp for a private dedicated number to connect
24/7..) nowadays just about any internet connection is overkill for a bbs.

i suppose if you have crummy internet or don't have a spare pc your options
might be limited..

to each their own i guess

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
 * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

  Re: Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: fusion to Terminator on Thu Mar 18 2021 09:21 am

 >  Te> There price on VPN servers is good if you want to run a very small bbs
 >  Te> systems. --- CNet/5
 >
 > i duno, i think it sounds kind of lame to run a bbs on a VPS .. when a user
 > goes for the 'page sysop' command you should be able to break in to chat
 > because you heard the machine beeping at you.
 >
 > even when i had dialup internet back in the day the bbs worked just fine for
 > two nodes (granted i paid my isp for a private dedicated number to connect
 > 24/7..) nowadays just about any internet connection is overkill for a bbs.
 >
 > i suppose if you have crummy internet or don't have a spare pc your options
 > might be limited..
 >
 > to each their own i guess


i've ran my bbses on a hosted server for years and i love it. very stable and it's not that much money. less computers in the house.  if they want to talk to me they can email me and i get it right away.

i use proxmox and create vms for it to run.
---
 ■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

  Re: Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: MRO to fusion on Thu Mar 18 2021 19:40:42

If both bbs and sysio are running linux I have a pager for that situation, though email/discord might be better. Buyt still usefull for recreating the retro experience...

Marisa
--- https://SynchronetBBS.org/HostSplash - SBBS hosting for $14/month
 ■ Synchronet ■ Amiga City - The BBS for the Amiga - more than 4,000+ files

  Re: Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: fusion to Terminator on Thu Mar 18 2021 09:21:00

 fu> i duno, i think it sounds kind of lame to run a bbs on a VPS .. when a
 fu> user goes for the 'page sysop' command you should be able to break in to
 fu> chat because you heard the machine beeping at you.

 fu> even when i had dialup internet back in the day the bbs worked just fine
 fu> for two nodes (granted i paid my isp for a private dedicated number to
 fu> connect 24/7..) nowadays just about any internet connection is overkill
 fu> for a bbs.

 fu> i suppose if you have crummy internet or don't have a spare pc your
 fu> options might be limited..

I couldn't agree more.
-+-

Lupine Furmen
-Dallas Vinson
   Furmens Folly (FIDO 1:123/257) - telnet: furmenservices.net:23
                                       SSH: furmenservices.net:23222
   Before the Web  - telnet: furmenservices.net:23232
   Legends of Yesteryear (FIDO 1:123/256) - telnet: furmenservices.net:23322
   Sound Source ]|[ - telnet: furmenservices.net:2323



Dallas

.... It would be illogical to kill without reason. Spock, stardate 3842.4.

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ Furmen's Folly - furmenservices.net:23

Lupine wrote:

 fu> i suppose if you have crummy internet or don't have a spare pc your
 fu> options might be limited..

I couldn't agree more.

What if you already have one IP and you're already running services on those
addresses? Most IPS are not going to give residential customers more than one
IP.

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com

  Re: Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: Nelgin to Lupine Furmen on Fri Mar 19 2021 04:47 pm

 > Lupine wrote:
 > >  fu> i suppose if you have crummy internet or don't have a spare pc your
 > >  fu> options might be limited..
 >
 > > I couldn't agree more.
 >
 > What if you already have one IP and you're already running services on those
 > addresses? Most IPS are not going to give residential customers more than
 > one IP.

You can usually pay a little more for static IP address and get a 5-pack. I've had 5-packs since the late '90s with DSL and cable modem service.
--
                                            digital man

Sling Blade quote #20:
Doyle: Hey is this the kind of retard that drools and rubs shit in his hair?
Norco, CA WX: 68.0°F, 54.0% humidity, 14 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

  Re: Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: Nelgin to Lupine Furmen on Fri Mar 19 2021 16:47:11

 Ne> What if you already have one IP and you're already running services on
 Ne> those addresses? Most IPS are not going to give residential customers more
 Ne> than one IP.

I only have 1 IP. Each of my BBS' is on a different port. All on the same
machine. Running 5 BBS' 4 FTP's, 1 WWW, and 1 MUSH.
-+-

Lupine Furmen
-Dallas Vinson
   Furmens Folly (FIDO 1:123/257) - telnet: furmenservices.net:23
                                       SSH: furmenservices.net:23222
   Before the Web  - telnet: furmenservices.net:23232
   Legends of Yesteryear (FIDO 1:123/256) - telnet: furmenservices.net:23322
   Sound Source ]|[ - telnet: furmenservices.net:2323



Dallas

.... Racial prejudice is a pigment of the imagination.

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ Furmen's Folly - furmenservices.net:23

Digital wrote:

  Re: Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: Nelgin to Lupine Furmen on Fri Mar 19 2021 04:47 pm

 > Lupine wrote:
 > >  fu> i suppose if you have crummy internet or don't have a spare pc your
 > >  fu> options might be limited..
 >
 > > I couldn't agree more.
 >
 > What if you already have one IP and you're already running services on those
 > addresses? Most IPS are not going to give residential customers more than
 > one IP.

You can usually pay a little more for static IP address and get a 5-pack. I've had 5-packs since the late '90s with DSL and cable modem service.

For Frontier FiOS, I believe you have to get the business service to get
static IP addresses. It's not just a few bucks more. I think my VPS was
cheaper than a years worth of static IP.

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com

  Re: Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: Nelgin to Lupine Furmen on Fri Mar 19 2021 16:47:11


 Nelgin> What if you already have one IP and you're already running
 Nelgin> services on those addresses? Most IPS are not going to give
 Nelgin> residential customers more than one IP.

you're still thinking in IPv4 terms... IPv6 comes in blocks of addresses... IPv6 is generally allocated to end users in /48 blocks... a /48 is 65535 LAN segments which the end user can further subdivide... more than enough
addresses for the average end user's site even if it is fully loaded with fridges, freezers, stoves, lamps, etc all internet capable and connected... and there's still plenty of addresses in there free to use for servers and
such...

the main thing i don't care for with IPv6 is the loss of NAT which, granted, is not needed, but it is a way to kind of protect your devices by keeping them hidden... IPv6 is not meant to be hidden and every address is meant to
be accessible from everywhere... it is a huge change from IPv4 thinking, really...


)\/(ark

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ The SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR

  Re: Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: Rampage to Nelgin on Sat Mar 20 2021 04:36 am

 > the main thing i don't care for with IPv6 is the loss of NAT which, granted, is not needed, but it is a way to kind of prote
 > your devices by keeping them hidden... IPv6 is not meant to be hidden and every address is meant to
 > be accessible from everywhere... it is a huge change from IPv4 thinking, really...
 >

I am not sorry for NAT. You can still use a firewall on both the router and your home computers.

I am more worried about the state of ipv6 firewalling itself being a mess (if you check the relevant RFC's you'll see what I
mean), the fact you don't get to assign your own subnetworks and logical segments unless the ISP allows you to do so (because
if they don't offer you proper prefix delegation, all you get is a LAN network you cannot divide), and the fact IP blacklists
are not going to work anymore (a botnet-infected device has lots of ips to choose from, so if its IP gets banned, it is easier
to get a new one than it used to be).

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

  Re: Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: Marisag to MRO on Fri Mar 19 2021 01:27 am

 >   Re: Re: Cheap Hosting...
 >   By: MRO to fusion on Thu Mar 18 2021 19:40:42
 >
 > If both bbs and sysio are running linux I have a pager for that situation,
 > though email/discord might be better. Buyt still usefull for recreating the
 > retro experience...
 >
 > Marisa


quote your replies, please.
---
 ■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Hello Rampage!

** On Saturday 20.03.21 - 04:36, Rampage wrote to Nelgin:

 R> the main thing i don't care for with IPv6 is the loss of NAT
 R> which, granted, is not needed, but it is a way to kind of
 R> protect your devices by keeping them hidden... IPv6 is not
 R> meant to be hidden and every address is meant to be
 R> accessible from everywhere... it is a huge change from IPv4
 R> thinking, really...

Interesting. So there is not such thing as an IPv6 router with a 
NAT?


--- OpenXP 5.0.49
 * Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
 ■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

*** Quoting Rampage from a message to Nelgin ***

 Ra> the main thing i don't care for with IPv6 is the loss of NAT which,
 Ra> granted, is not needed, but it is a way to kind of protect your
 Ra> devices by keeping them hidden... IPv6 is not meant to be hidden and
 Ra> every address is meant to be accessible from everywhere... it is a
 Ra> huge change from IPv4 thinking, really...

I think it can depend on your router whether things are "hidden".  I use
Google WiFi for example, and while every device (that supports IPv6) has a
public IPv6 address, the router still acts as a firewall for all of those
devices.  I still have to "open" ports on the router for these devices if I
want them accessible on the open internet.

Windows firewall on Windows 10 also blocks pinging by default, so my laptop
still shows up as "stealth" even on IPv6.

Jay

.... Either one of us, by himself, is expendable.  Both of us are not.

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
 * Origin: Northern Realms | 289-424-5180 | bbs.nrbbs.net (99:99/2)

  Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: Ogg to Rampage on Sat Mar 20 2021 06:56 pm

 > Hello Rampage!
 >
 > ** On Saturday 20.03.21 - 04:36, Rampage wrote to Nelgin:
 >
 >  R> the main thing i don't care for with IPv6 is the loss of NAT
 >  R> which, granted, is not needed, but it is a way to kind of
 >  R> protect your devices by keeping them hidden... IPv6 is not
 >  R> meant to be hidden and every address is meant to be
 >  R> accessible from everywhere... it is a huge change from IPv4
 >  R> thinking, really...
 >
 > Interesting. So there is not such thing as an IPv6 router with a
 > NAT?

ipv6-to-ipv6 NAT exists, but:

1) It is not widespread in consumer-grade routers. If you use a custom built router or an "advanced" or ISP/WISP grade one, you
have a chance of having it supported.

2) Many programs won't work over ipv6-to-ipv6 NAT even if they actually work over NAT4. End-to-end connectivity is pretty much
expected from ipv6 networks and things may break if this is not given.

3) Even if NAT is implemented, firewalls are supposed to leat a whole lot of ICMP traffic in an out as to allow proper
prefix-delegation and address assignment. The relevant RFC is there for everybody to see.

TL;DR: It exists but it sucks.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

  Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: Ogg to Rampage on Sat Mar 20 2021 18:56:00


 R>> the main thing i don't care for with IPv6 is the loss of NAT
 R>> which, granted, is not needed, but it is a way to kind of
 R>> protect your devices by keeping them hidden... IPv6 is not
 R>> meant to be hidden and every address is meant to be
 R>> accessible from everywhere... it is a huge change from IPv4
 R>> thinking, really...

 Ogg> Interesting. So there is not such thing as an IPv6 router
 Ogg> with a NAT?

there is but only for certain uses, AIUI... here are some quick quotes that may help understanding...

"Because NAT exists to overcome a shortage of IPv4 addresses, and because IPv6 has no such shortage, IPv6 networks do not require NAT."

"What is correct in relation to NAT for IPv6? It is a temporary mechanism to assist in the migration from IPv4 to IPv6."

"Nat for ipv6 is strongly discouraged by IETF. ... People use NAT for a variety of reasons. Address availability, they want more addresses for internal hosts than they have public addresses. Address independence, they want to
maintain their internal addresses independent of changes to their connectivity."

"NAT64 is an IPv6 transition mechanism that facilitates communication between IPv6 and IPv4 hosts by using a form of network address translation (NAT). The NAT64 gateway creates a mapping between the IPv6 and the IPv4
addresses, which may be manually configured or determined automatically."

"The end-to-end connectivity problems that are caused by NAT are solved because the number of routes increases with the number of nodes that are connected to the Internet. ... Answers Explanation & Hints: The large number of
public IPv6 addresses eliminates the need for NAT."

the above quotes taken from

  https://www.google.com/search?q=IPV6+NAT


)\/(ark

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ The SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR

-=> Lupine Furmen wrote to Nelgin <=-

 LF> I only have 1 IP. Each of my BBS' is on a different port. All on the
 LF> same machine. Running 5 BBS' 4 FTP's, 1 WWW, and 1 MUSH.

One thing I'm playing with is setting up a reverse proxy for web services.
Set up the proxy on the outside IP, or NAT into it, then use the proxy to
point subdirectories or virtual hosts off of that IP to internal hosts.

I'm using a router with DD-WRT, and with a package called Entware, it'll
support Linux applications. It's going to run NGINX as a main web server,
then proxy to my internal hosts.

Telnet and/or SSH still need to be on different ports and NATed in, but
that's easier to deal with than users or applications that expect to be on
ports 80 or 443.


.... Display your talent
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
 ■ Synchronet ■ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

-=> Ogg wrote to Rampage <=-

 R> the main thing i don't care for with IPv6 is the loss of NAT
 R> which, granted, is not needed, but it is a way to kind of
 R> protect your devices by keeping them hidden... IPv6 is not
 R> meant to be hidden and every address is meant to be
 R> accessible from everywhere... it is a huge change from IPv4
 R> thinking, really...

 Og> Interesting. So there is not such thing as an IPv6 router with a
 Og> NAT?

I thought the whole idea was to go back to the internet-of-old, where
everything is on the network?



.... Display your talent
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
 ■ Synchronet ■ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

  Re: Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: poindexter FORTRAN to Ogg on Sun Mar 21 2021 07:40:00


 pF> I thought the whole idea was to go back to the internet-of-old,
 pF> where everything is on the network?

that means that providers can then count every device on your network and possibly charge you per device like the cable companies charge you for so many TVs be connected and like the telcos used to do charging you for each
telephone handset...


)\/(ark

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ The SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR

Hello poindexter!

 Og>> Interesting. So there is not such thing as an IPv6 router
 Og>> with a NAT?

 pF> I thought the whole idea was to go back to the internet-of-
 pF> old, where everything is on the network?

The way things are happening with IoT devices, I wouldn't want 
someone poking around my "visible" network and mess with the 
attached devices.


--- OpenXP 5.0.49
 * Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
 ■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Hello Rampage!

** On Sunday 21.03.21 - 09:50, you wrote to me:

 Ogg>> Interesting. So there is not such thing as an IPv6 router
 Ogg>> with a NAT?

 R> there is but only for certain uses, AIUI... here are some quick quotes
 R> that may help understanding...

8< [snip]

 R> "The end-to-end connectivity problems that are caused by NAT are solved
 R> because the number of routes increases with the number of nodes that are
 R> connected to the Internet. ... Answers Explanation & Hints: The large
 R> number of public IPv6 addresses eliminates the need for NAT."

 R> the above quotes taken from

 R>   https://www.google.com/search?q=IPV6+NAT

I still think that a NAT that hides internal devices from the 
outside world is a good thing.

IPv6 will be a long way off for me.  I don't see Luckymobile 
supporting it and I don't get any indication that Acanac (my DSL 
serivce) is either.


--- OpenXP 5.0.49
 * Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
 ■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Ogg wrote:

IPv6 will be a long way off for me.  I don't see Luckymobile 
supporting it and I don't get any indication that Acanac (my DSL 
serivce) is either.

https://tunnelbroker.net free ipv6 over ipv4 tunnel

I've been running one for years. Very stable. Not as fast a native ipv6 or
ipv4 but still you can get decent speeds. All my VPS boxes run ipv6 nativly.

:~$ ping -4 -c 5 www.yahoo.com
PING new-fp-shed.wg1.b.yahoo.com (74.6.143.25) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (74.6.143.25): icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=39.9 ms
64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (74.6.143.25): icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=40.5 ms
64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (74.6.143.25): icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=40.7 ms
64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (74.6.143.25): icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=40.7 ms
64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (74.6.143.25): icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=39.7 ms

:~$ ping -6 -c 5 www.yahoo.com
PING www.yahoo.com(media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.ne1.yahoo.com (2001:4998:44:3507::8000)) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.ne1.yahoo.com (2001:4998:44:3507::8000): icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=31.1 ms
64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.ne1.yahoo.com (2001:4998:44:3507::8000): icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=36.3 ms
64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.ne1.yahoo.com (2001:4998:44:3507::8000): icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=32.8 ms
64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.ne1.yahoo.com (2001:4998:44:3507::8000): icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=31.7 ms
64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.ne1.yahoo.com (2001:4998:44:3507::8000): icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=31.3 ms


Interestingly for me, pinging yahoo via ipv6 tunnel is quicker than over the
ipv4 native connection. Now that was surprising!


I have OpenWRT running on my router which will run the ipv6 tunnel for me.

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com

Rampage wrote:

  Re: Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: Nelgin to Lupine Furmen on Fri Mar 19 2021 16:47:11


 Nelgin> What if you already have one IP and you're already running
 Nelgin> services on those addresses? Most IPS are not going to give
 Nelgin> residential customers more than one IP.

you're still thinking in IPv4 terms... IPv6 comes in blocks of addresses... IPv6 is generally allocated to end users in /48 blocks... a /48 is 65535 LAN segments which the end user can further subdivide... more than enough
addresses for the average end user's site even if it is fully loaded with fridges, freezers, stoves, lamps, etc all internet capable and connected... and there's still plenty of addresses in there free to use for servers and
such...

Yes, of course I'm talking in ipv4 terms, because most ISPs are not giving out
ipv6 to customers, especially residential customers. Verizon doesn't (or
didn't) and neither do Frontier. I think some of the cable companies do but
overall, I would say that residential ipv6 is few and far between with most
users probably not even aware of it. And yes, I do know what ipv6 is. I've
been "Sage" certified with HE since 2009.

the main thing i don't care for with IPv6 is the loss of NAT which, granted, is not needed, but it is a way to kind of protect your devices by keeping them hidden... IPv6 is not meant to be hidden and every address is meant to
be accessible from everywhere... it is a huge change from IPv4 thinking, really...

Yes, ipv6 does make a firewall absolutely necessary for any system running it.

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com

I mis-spoke - Sage certified since 2016. :)

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com

  Re: IPv6 and NAT
  By: Ogg to Rampage on Sun Mar 21 2021 17:22:00


 R>>   https://www.google.com/search?q=IPV6+NAT

 Ogg> I still think that a NAT that hides internal devices from the
 Ogg> outside world is a good thing.

same here...

 Ogg> IPv6 will be a long way off for me.  I don't see Luckymobile
 Ogg> supporting it and I don't get any indication that Acanac (my DSL
 Ogg> serivce) is either.

i have IPv6 inside and out but my firewall doesn't support it... until it does, im going to remain IPv4... i don't plan on switching firewalls, nor do i care to, any time soon...


)\/(ark

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ The SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR

  Re: Cheap Hosting...
  By: Ogg to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Mar 21 2021 05:17 pm

 > Hello poindexter!
 >
 >  Og>> Interesting. So there is not such thing as an IPv6 router
 >  Og>> with a NAT?
 >
 >  pF> I thought the whole idea was to go back to the internet-of-
 >  pF> old, where everything is on the network?
 >
 > The way things are happening with IoT devices, I wouldn't want
 > someone poking around my "visible" network and mess with the
 > attached devices.

Yes, this is why I call bullshit on people who is happy because we are finally going to have end-to-end connectivity from any
device to any device with ipv6.

Just not gonna happen.

First thing everybody is going to do in his network is set a firewall up, NAT or no NAT. And once the firewall is up, devices
will only be reachable and end-to-end connectable if the administrator deigns to open the ports for you. Exactly like we have
right now, but with the disadvantages:

* Now everybody knows your network topology.
* Your firewall is not half as cool as it used to be, because you are supposed to let a lot of control traffic in an out just
so your devices can be assigned addresses.
* The ISP gets to decide how you manage your network topology. If you want to segment your network in a certain way, the ISP
must provide you with your own block, or you have to resort to local addresses that are not Internet routable (and thus defeat
ipv6's purpose).

One big advantage, though:

* You can have multiple devices in the same LAN offer the same port to the public. If you had two web servers behind a nat
offering port 80, you could not just forward a port to each because the router can only offer a single port 80 to the public.
You had to use some reverse proxy or relayer middleman. With NATless ipv6, you may skip the reverse proxy. You may still want
to use it for other reasons, but you are not forced to.

In my opinion, ipv6 is a net gain to ISPs and big data, because ones get to control your network, and the others get to see
your network, but for end users... not worth it.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL