On 07/06/2012 12:45 PM, Michiel de Jong wrote: >> I'm a little leery of asking users to sign up for a service on a device >> > that's designed to let them host their own services. It seems >> > internally inconsistent. I don't think I have anything against offering >> > it as an option, but it shouldn't be the only one. > > i see your point, but what alternative do you see? if you want to > offer any form of web presence, you need an IP address with a DNS > domain pointing to it. the box needs to dial up to some sort of name > service to announce where it is today. this can be either a DNS server > or a (network of) reverse proxy(s) if you're on a dynamically assigned > own IP. If you're behind NAT, then only a (network of) reverse > proxy(s) can help you. The proposed DHT which resolves names to onion > addresses is effectively a network of revers proxies too, and is not > something we currently have working in production even on normal > laptops afaik. >
I don't see anything wrong with setting up such a service as long as we work towards making it possible for others to set them up too. I have a publicly virtual machine with a v4 address that I would love to use as a dynamicDNS provider for my freedombox trapped behind cable company NAT. Others may be able to more easily buy a static address from their ISP directly and use their freedombox itself as a dynamicDNS server for friends with their own freedomboxes. If everyone with a route-able address can run such a service for the people in their lives who trust them to run it then it actually seems pretty natural to me that community non-profits like the freedombox foundation or Debian itself would start running such services for their communities. -Ian _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
