Replying to
@nuintari@mastodon.bsd.cafe Infrahub by Opsmill has a very interesting approach in this space. Sadly, I don’t think it’s slopless.
Remote
Jaap de Vos
@jaap@mastodon.bsd.cafe
mastodon 4.7.3I like routers, switches, servers, dogs, audio, nature, some people, and more tech. Trying to abide by good principles. Long COVID patient.
Real home in NL. Main Mastodon home at BSD Cafe.
93 Followers
164 Following
18 Posts
Joined March 18, 2025
Replying to
@stefano@mastodon.bsd.cafe Probably better than this abomination I just spotted in a supermarket
Replying to
@oxy@social.bsdlab.au @stefano@mastodon.bsd.cafe I moved a bunch of these from SSLVPN to IPsec. But good luck if you have some specific parameters (following NIST guidelines) that the Windows client exposes but the MacOS client does not. Life would be better without FortiCrap.
Replying to
@Gina@fosstodon.org I like branding these as hostile, finally a justification for hitting them with a flying kick
A new article at the RIPE blog explains the current state of running IPv4 services over IPv6-only networks.
The three pieces are RFC 8950 (IPv6 next-hops for IPv4 prefixes), a draft about IPv6 next-hops for IPv4 routes, and a draft for solving the IPv4 gateway problem that systems running IPv4 services in these types of networks typically have.
It’s cool to see this gateway thing in such an informed piece, I’ve been wondering about that bit for a while. You might have seen different service providers solving this in different ways, with a /32 on either a regular interface or a loopback, and a strange default route pointing to just an interface (with no destination IP), or a destination IP in a prefix that the given machine doesn’t know about.
Linux seems to support a couple of different ways to go about this (of course), and FreeBSD and OpenBSD each support a single, different solution AFAIK. I don’t believe illumos even has a way to solve this problem at the moment, but I might have that one wrong.
Anyway, do have a look at the article:
https://labs.ripe.net/author/remco-van-mook/a-farewell-to-arps-ipv4-service-on-ipv6-only-networks/
#IPv6 #IPv6mostly #fuckdualstack #networking
Replying to
@IPngNetworks@ublog.tech It’s awesome what you’ve already built in 5 years. May IPng continue to bring you much fun
Could I use FreeBSD to provide small-scale VPS hosting in a multi-tenancy setup? It doesn't need to be fancy, power user skills could be assumed, but things would need to be properly isolated from each other. Minimal features would be providing console access and power on/power off/reboot features.
Nice to have is uploading and mounting your own ISO.
When I previously asked a similar question at illumos Cafe, the answer was Triton Datacenter. As far as I can tell, FreeBSD doesn't have anything close to that. I've looked for VPS hosting providers that run FreeBSD underneath but haven't found a lot. Even FreeBSD-focused companies usually turn out to use Xen underneath. The closest thing is probably OpenBSD Amsterdam, which is of course not FreeBSD.
Replying to
@oxy@social.bsdlab.au @dexter@bsd.network @bellhyve@verse.belltower.it Thanks for pointing this out, will have a listen. I did the VPP workshop at BSDCan with much interest and hope to see the implementation reach production grade eventually.
Replying to
@brendan@social.brendans-bits.com I’ve looked at Sylve and it’s definitely interesting. For now it seems like it fits more into the category of Proxmox. Even Proxmox doesn’t lend itself perfectly to multi-tenancy use cases yet, although they’re getting there. A lot of the required components are present and you could make a good approach with a lot of manual labor. I’m not ruling out Sylve in the future, depending on the direction the development will take.
@nuintari@mastodon.bsd.cafe Availability is supposed to be a part of security, right? Anything statically routed can’t react to failures dynamically, thereby reducing availability, and thus security.
Anyway, tell the dude/dudette Fortinet is the most secure, especially with their SSLVPN feature exposed.
Replying to
@dawgeth@retro.pizza For small scale, managed e-mail hosting, also take a look at mailbox.org. I’ve been happy with it so far.
VPS hosting can be done at a lot of places. OVH is good but not the cheapest. You can also look at Hetzner and Upcloud.
@stefano@mastodon.bsd.cafe Congratulations on the new projects! Although I wonder when you sandpapered your throat to be able to make that comparison
Replying to
@philvuchetich@bsd.network @gyptazy @BoxyBSD@mastodon.bsd.cafe Thanks for pointing this out! Could I find info about the guts of this project somewhere? I seem to remember Proxmox was being used underneath but maybe I got that wrong.
Replying to
@benjamineskola@hachyderm.io I’m sure it could be done. The OpenBSD AMS project has a bunch of interesting documentation around this. I thought of jailing individual bhyve VM’s, then providing users console access to their jail for management operations.
For small scale solutions, this approach would probably be good enough. I was hoping to learn about other interesting implementations, and to avoid reinventing the wheel. To me, the use case shouldn’t be exotic, but maybe FreeBSD really doesn’t see much use at all for this purpose?
Replying to
@zolaris@mastodon.illumos.cafe illumos is proven to work and I’m leaning toward going that way. I want to give BSD a chance too though. It’s a trade-off. The illumos approach to isolation features seems better to me. The user and dev community seems a lot smaller however. I’m 50/50 about the ZFS situation, the slow and stable approach of illumos seems sensible, but most of the install base is on OpenZFS today through Linux or FreeBSD.