Selfhosted

60409 readers

543 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:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

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

submitted 2 years ago by squigglycunt@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

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

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If it’s double NAT where you have control over both boxes, it’s not that big a deal. First of all, it only matters at all if you’re trying to forward ports for remote access to your services, in which case you just need to add two port forwarding rules for each service, instead of one, one in each firewall. Alternatively if the ISP router allows it, see if it has a 1:1 NAT feature, this way it forwards ALL the ports to your private router, where you can then be selective about which ports to allow.

Alternatively, if you’re not trying to host services on your LAN for public access and consumption (Which would be a bad idea at this point in time anyway given your level of knowledge) don’t worry about the NAT or port forwarding at all and just use a mesh VPN like Tailscale (Optionally with the self hosted control application Headscale) and use that to access your services which outside home securely.

[–] LazerFX@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

Some routers will call the 1:1 NAT feature, "DMZ" (Short for Demilitarised Zone). The idea is that you just act as a pass-through, in this case, "passing through" the external internal to the internal router.