Selfhosted

39257 readers

207 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

How terrible is double NAT? really? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hi,

I’ve been trying to work out my network architecture with the pieces i have today:

isp box with 10gig dac downlink, 4 ssd bays
pfsense box with dual 10gig dac card
switch with 10gig dac uplink and multi gig rj45
main proxmox host
other devices (laptops, iot…)

ive ran into a dilemma regarding switching my isp box to bridge mode:

if i do, i lose wlan and nas capabilities
if i dont, i have to contend with double nat

i’m sure that eventually i will get an ap (maybe unifi) and a dedicated nas (either home built or something like synology or asustore), but for the moment, i want to keep cost down and gradually add new pieces

i was wondering if double nat is of huge performance and maintenance implications, or if i would be okay running this setup for a few months until i get to add an ap and nas?

thank you

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you're using double NAT, you're doing something wrong. If you want to do it right, stop using double nat. If that doesn't matter to you, and you're comfortable supporting a broken-by-design network, do it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm going to briefly explain why I downvoted... this (I feel) is an unhelpful comment that doesn't explain anything. You say, "[if] you're comfortable support a broken-by-design network, do it.", but you don't explain why it's a broken-by-design network.

I'll say - I agree with you, but the comment doesn't actually enhance the conversation and comes off as abrasive and unhelpful. If I'm looking for information, I'd rather be given education (Even if it's just a, "Go here for why you don't do that!"), not just a, "Don't do it" with no assistance and help for how to do it right.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

If you don't understand why it'ss broken, I guess that's on you. If you're to tbe point op is in terms of their needs, network topology etc and you still don't understand the fundamentals, what do you expect me to say to resolve that? If you're OK with supporting your broken, incorrectly configured network, then by all means. If you are not, then expect the answer from those you're asking for help from to be "fix your shit". Do not expect anyone to educate you. It's like arguing with creationists - you picked this dumbass thing to get behind, I'm not on the hook to explain basic logic to you.