So my cable company has been jacking up the rates, and for a little-used
office connection (one phone line and internet) I’m now paying nearly $300 per month.

So Starlink is looking attractive at $50 for 50 GB. However, I need to host
a couple of SSH servers. I can use DDNS or possibly a cron job that puts
the WAN address onto another server, but only if Starlink doesn’t muck with it or prohibit it.

Any experience using Starlink to host a server?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28/07/2025 15:24, Phil Hobbs wrote:

So my cable company has been jacking up the rates, and for a little-used
office connection (one phone line and internet) I’m now paying nearly $300 >> per month.

So Starlink is looking attractive at $50 for 50 GB. However, I need to host >> a couple of SSH servers. I can use DDNS or possibly a cron job that puts
the WAN address onto another server, but only if Starlink doesn’t muck with
it or prohibit it.

Any experience using Starlink to host a server?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Starlink uses carrier grade NAT which will prevent incoming traffic
from accessing your server.

John

I’m hearing rumors about VPSes being used for that. Our hosting company (Digital Ocean, highly recommended) has a VPS service, but that’s the
extent of my knowledge of it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/28/2025 7:50 AM, John R Walliker wrote:

Starlink uses carrier grade NAT which will prevent incoming traffic
from accessing your server.

Many EULAs forbid operating servers -- even if technically
possible.

One can always have the server reach out to the client
to avoid technological restrictions. But, that adds
a bit of protocol overhead (which COULD be a good
thing)

My outfacing machines require a specific "knock sequence"
before they will respond to connection requests from an
IP address (which need not be hard-wired and whitelisted
but must be consistent for the entire "knock" protocol).
So, they are less likely to be discovered and subsequently
probed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Phil Hobbs wrote:

So my cable company has been jacking up the rates, and for a little-used office connection (one phone line and internet) I’m now paying nearly $300 per month.

So Starlink is looking attractive at $50 for 50 GB. However, I need to host
a couple of SSH servers. I can use DDNS or possibly a cron job that puts
the WAN address onto another server, but only if Starlink doesn’t muck with it or prohibit it.

Any experience using Starlink to host a server?

Starlink's superior speed motivated one of my clients to migrate about
a year ago. They purchased the more expensive business plan. Among other benefits, the business plan allows you to bypass Starlink's router to
provision a suitable public IP address on your own third party router.
This approach avoids adding another vendor to the mix and renting
"software as a service." But, you pay a higher fee to Starlink.

Fun fact: on a clear night in the Northern Hemisphere, at twilight,
after the sun sets on Earth yet still shines on satellites, you can
see small swarms of Starlinks snake by overhead.

Danke,

--
Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:55:02 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28/07/2025 15:24, Phil Hobbs wrote:

So my cable company has been jacking up the rates, and for a little-used >>> office connection (one phone line and internet) I’m now paying nearly $300 >>> per month.

So Starlink is looking attractive at $50 for 50 GB. However, I need to host >>> a couple of SSH servers. I can use DDNS or possibly a cron job that puts >>> the WAN address onto another server, but only if Starlink doesn’t muck with >>> it or prohibit it.

Any experience using Starlink to host a server?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Starlink uses carrier grade NAT which will prevent incoming traffic
from accessing your server.

John

I’m hearing rumors about VPSes being used for that. Our hosting company >(Digital Ocean, highly recommended) has a VPS service, but that’s the
extent of my knowledge of it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

We have some friends in Inverness in a neighborhood that didn't have
decent internet service. One of his neighbors bought a microwave link
pair and connected up to a friend across Tomales Bay, for the
neigborhood.

The microwave links are crazy cheap.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:55:02 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28/07/2025 15:24, Phil Hobbs wrote:

So my cable company has been jacking up the rates, and for a little-used >>>> office connection (one phone line and internet) IÂ’m now paying nearly $300
per month.

So Starlink is looking attractive at $50 for 50 GB. However, I need to host
a couple of SSH servers. I can use DDNS or possibly a cron job that puts >>>> the WAN address onto another server, but only if Starlink doesnÂ’t muck with
it or prohibit it.

Any experience using Starlink to host a server?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Starlink uses carrier grade NAT which will prevent incoming traffic
from accessing your server.

John

IÂ’m hearing rumors about VPSes being used for that. Our hosting company
(Digital Ocean, highly recommended) has a VPS service, but thatÂ’s the
extent of my knowledge of it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

We have some friends in Inverness in a neighborhood that didn't have
decent internet service. One of his neighbors bought a microwave link
pair and connected up to a friend across Tomales Bay, for the
neigborhood.

The microwave links are crazy cheap.

Huh, packet-sniff THIS, piker!

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/28/2025 10:07 AM, John R Walliker wrote:

On 28/07/2025 17:41, Don wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:

So my cable company has been jacking up the rates, and for a little-used >>> office connection (one phone line and internet) I’m now paying nearly $300
per month.

So Starlink is looking attractive at $50 for 50 GB. However, I need to host >>> a couple of SSH  servers. I can use DDNS or possibly a cron job that puts >>> the WAN address onto another server, but only if Starlink doesn’t muck with
it or prohibit it.

Any experience using Starlink to host a server?

Starlink's superior speed motivated one of my clients to migrate about
a year ago. They purchased the more expensive business plan. Among other
benefits, the business plan allows you to bypass Starlink's router to
provision a suitable public IP address on your own third party router.
     This approach avoids adding another vendor to the mix and renting >> "software as a service." But, you pay a higher fee to Starlink.

Fun fact: on a clear night in the Northern Hemisphere, at twilight,
after the sun sets on Earth yet still shines on satellites, you can
see small swarms of Starlinks snake by overhead.

Danke,

I have seen a Starlink "string of pearls" where 60 satellites
orbit in a row before final deployment.  I counted about 56
of them with the naked eye.
I think a VPS could make a lot of sense as it would probably be
far cheaper than a higher grade Starlink service.
The other option is to use a tunnel to give your server a public
address.  L2TP is known to work over Starlink.
If you are able to use a UK provider a limited bandwidth L2TP
tunnel only costs GBP 2 per month.

I've been exploring ways to let "occupants" interact with their "residences" without necessitating the addition of other "providers" in the chain.

First, it saves an ongoing expense (above and beyond whatever "services"
to which one already subscribes).

Second, eliminates a reliance on that service's availability (shit happens)

Third, it doesn't allow for probes to detect a potential target.

Fourth, it hides the communication from eavesdroppers, packet sniffers,
etc. even if they *do* discover (or suspect) a target's existence.

But, I rely on the C&C nature of such links to implicitly limit the
amount of traffic and frequency of it. So, thinner pipes can be
used along with higher protocol overheads.

Of course, you have to do this all in a way that doesn't tax the
user...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <1068306$26mov$1@dont-email.me>,
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

I’m hearing rumors about VPSes being used for that. Our hosting company >(Digital Ocean, highly recommended) has a VPS service, but that’s the >extent of my knowledge of it.

Can definitely recommend VPS in general although I can't speak as to
Digital Ocean. I've had my personal domain / server hosted on a VPS
at iocoop.org, and I have a second VPS at tornadovps.com which
provides some redundancy and secondary-DNS-server functionality. It's definitely cheaper than hosting a full physical server at a co-lo,
both VPS providers have provisioned a stable public-routable IPv4
address and provide IPv6 as well, and both have excellent connections
to major Internet switching points so bandwidth and latency are
just fine.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28/07/2025 15:24, Phil Hobbs wrote:

So my cable company has been jacking up the rates, and for a little-used office connection (one phone line and internet) I’m now paying nearly $300
per month.

So Starlink is looking attractive at $50 for 50 GB. However, I need to host a couple of SSH servers. I can use DDNS or possibly a cron job that puts the WAN address onto another server, but only if Starlink doesn’t muck with
it or prohibit it.

Any experience using Starlink to host a server?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Starlink uses carrier grade NAT which will prevent incoming traffic
from accessing your server.

It appears Starlink supports native IPv6 (ie no NAT or other messing) on the standard plan: https://www.starlink.com/gb/support/article/1192f3ef-2a17-31d9-261a-a59d215629f4

If you can ensure anything that needs to connect to your servers has IPv6 connectivity, all you'd need then is some DDNS.

Theo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gMjAyNS0wNy0yOCAxMTowMyBhLm0uLCBQaGlsIEhvYmJzIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBqb2huIGxh cmtpbiA8amxAZ2xlbi0tY2FueW9uLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+PiBPbiBNb24sIDI4IEp1bCAy MDI1IDE0OjU1OjAyIC0wMDAwIChVVEMpLCBQaGlsIEhvYmJzDQo+PiA8cGNkaFNwYW1NZVNl bnNlbGVzc0BlbGVjdHJvb3B0aWNhbC5uZXQ+IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4NCj4+PiBKb2huIFIgV2Fs bGlrZXIgPGpyd2FsbGlrZXJAZ21haWwuY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCj4+Pj4gT24gMjgvMDcvMjAy NSAxNToyNCwgUGhpbCBIb2JicyB3cm90ZToNCj4+Pj4+IFNvIG15IGNhYmxlIGNvbXBhbnkg aGFzIGJlZW4gamFja2luZyB1cCB0aGUgcmF0ZXMsIGFuZCBmb3IgYSBsaXR0bGUtdXNlZA0K Pj4+Pj4gb2ZmaWNlIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24gKG9uZSBwaG9uZSBsaW5lIGFuZCBpbnRlcm5ldCkg ScKSbSBub3cgcGF5aW5nIG5lYXJseSAkMzAwDQo+Pj4+PiBwZXIgbW9udGguDQo+Pj4+Pg0K Pj4+Pj4gU28gU3RhcmxpbmsgaXMgbG9va2luZyBhdHRyYWN0aXZlIGF0ICQ1MCBmb3IgNTAg R0IuIEhvd2V2ZXIsIEkgbmVlZCB0byBob3N0DQo+Pj4+PiBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiBTU0ggIHNl cnZlcnMuIEkgY2FuIHVzZSBERE5TIG9yIHBvc3NpYmx5IGEgY3JvbiBqb2IgdGhhdCBwdXRz DQo+Pj4+PiB0aGUgV0FOIGFkZHJlc3Mgb250byBhbm90aGVyIHNlcnZlciwgYnV0IG9ubHkg aWYgU3RhcmxpbmsgZG9lc27CknQgbXVjayB3aXRoDQo+Pj4+PiBpdCBvciBwcm9oaWJpdCBp dC4NCj4+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+PiBBbnkgZXhwZXJpZW5jZSB1c2luZyBTdGFybGluayB0byBob3N0 IGEgc2VydmVyPw0KPj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4+IENoZWVycw0KPj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4+IFBoaWwgSG9i YnMNCj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4gU3RhcmxpbmsgdXNlcyBjYXJyaWVyIGdyYWRlIE5BVCB3aGljaCB3 aWxsIHByZXZlbnQgaW5jb21pbmcgdHJhZmZpYw0KPj4+PiBmcm9tIGFjY2Vzc2luZyB5b3Vy IHNlcnZlci4NCj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4gSm9obg0KPj4+Pg0KPj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gScKSbSBo ZWFyaW5nIHJ1bW9ycyBhYm91dCBWUFNlcyBiZWluZyB1c2VkIGZvciB0aGF0LiBPdXIgaG9z dGluZyBjb21wYW55DQo+Pj4gKERpZ2l0YWwgT2NlYW4sIGhpZ2hseSByZWNvbW1lbmRlZCkg aGFzIGEgVlBTIHNlcnZpY2UsIGJ1dCB0aGF0wpJzIHRoZQ0KPj4+IGV4dGVudCBvZiBteSBr bm93bGVkZ2Ugb2YgaXQuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBDaGVlcnMNCj4+Pg0KPj4+IFBoaWwgSG9iYnMN Cj4+DQo+PiBXZSBoYXZlIHNvbWUgZnJpZW5kcyBpbiBJbnZlcm5lc3MgaW4gYSBuZWlnaGJv cmhvb2QgdGhhdCBkaWRuJ3QgaGF2ZQ0KPj4gZGVjZW50IGludGVybmV0IHNlcnZpY2UuIE9u ZSBvZiBoaXMgbmVpZ2hib3JzIGJvdWdodCBhIG1pY3Jvd2F2ZSBsaW5rDQo+PiBwYWlyIGFu ZCBjb25uZWN0ZWQgdXAgdG8gYSBmcmllbmQgYWNyb3NzIFRvbWFsZXMgQmF5LCBmb3IgdGhl DQo+PiBuZWlnYm9yaG9vZC4NCj4+DQo+PiBUaGUgbWljcm93YXZlIGxpbmtzIGFyZSBjcmF6 eSBjaGVhcC4NCj4+DQo+Pg0KPj4NCj4gDQo+IEh1aCwgcGFja2V0LXNuaWZmIFRISVMsIHBp a2VyIQ0KDQpBbmQgeWV0IHlvdSB0cnVzdCB0aGUgU291dGggQWZyaWNhbiBOYXppIG5vdCB0 byBkYXRhLW1pbmU/DQoNCkpvaG4gOy0jKSMNCg0KDQoNCi0tIA0KKFBsZWFzZSBwb3N0IGZv bGxvd3VwcyBvciB0ZWNoIGlucXVpcmllcyB0byB0aGUgVVNFTkVUIG5ld3Nncm91cCkNCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBKb2huJ3MgSnVrZXMgTHRkLg0KICAgICAgICAjNyAtIDM5 NzkgTWFyaW5lIFdheSwgQnVybmFieSwgQkMsIENhbmFkYSBWNUogNUUzDQogICAgICAgICAg KDYwNCk4NzItNTc1NyAoUGluYmFsbHMsIEp1a2VzLCBWaWRlbyBHYW1lcykNCiAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICB3d3cuZmxpcHBlcnMuY29tDQogICAgICAgICJPbGQgcGluYmFsbGVy cyBuZXZlciBkaWUsIHRoZXkganVzdCBmbGlwIG91dC4iDQo=

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/29/25 18:28, John Robertson wrote:

On 2025-07-28 11:03 a.m., Phil Hobbs wrote:

john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:55:02 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28/07/2025 15:24, Phil Hobbs wrote:

So my cable company has been jacking up the rates, and for a
little-used
office connection (one phone line and internet) IÂ’m now paying
nearly $300
per month.

So Starlink is looking attractive at $50 for 50 GB. However, I
need to host
a couple of SSH  servers. I can use DDNS or possibly a cron job
that puts
the WAN address onto another server, but only if Starlink doesnÂ’t >>>>>> muck with
it or prohibit it.

Any experience using Starlink to host a server?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Starlink uses carrier grade NAT which will prevent incoming traffic
from accessing your server.

John

IÂ’m hearing rumors about VPSes being used for that. Our hosting company >>>> (Digital Ocean, highly recommended) has a VPS service, but thatÂ’s the >>>> extent of my knowledge of it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

We have some friends in Inverness in a neighborhood that didn't have
decent internet service. One of his neighbors bought a microwave link
pair and connected up to a friend across Tomales Bay, for the
neigborhood.

The microwave links are crazy cheap.

Huh, packet-sniff THIS, piker!

And yet you trust the South African Nazi not to data-mine?

John ;-#)#

Do you trust *any* provider not to do that?

Jeroen Belleman

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/29/2025 9:28 AM, John Robertson wrote:

And yet you trust the South African Nazi not to data-mine?

There is information in every interaction -- and absence thereof.

Who you interact with, who you don't; when you interact, when you
don't, etc.

A lot of that is visible regardless of the presence of encryption,
or not.

E.g., a "smart" CCTV camera emits a packet; chances are, it *saw*
something. If your goal is not to be seen, then you could monitor
it's traffic (ignoring content) and see if some change in its visual
field is "noticed" or not.

Like trying to not be seen by a PIr controlled floodlight (by
moving slowly enough to represent "DC" to the detector)

Of course, with this in mind, one can take steps to confuse
and obfuscate anyone "watching" your activity. E.g., irregular
"reports" from that camera look like traffic -- even if the
traffic contains no detected "signal".

But, adding this onto an existing product/protocol will likely
be evident and ineffective. You have to bake these things in from
the ground up!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/29/2025 12:13 PM, Don Y wrote:

On 7/29/2025 9:28 AM, John Robertson wrote:

And yet you trust the South African Nazi not to data-mine?

There is information in every interaction -- and absence thereof.

Who you interact with, who you don't; when you interact, when you
don't, etc.

A lot of that is visible regardless of the presence of encryption,
or not.

Imagine a wireless link where your monitoring of traffic can go
completely undetected.

"No one is home!"
"How do you know?"
"Their NEST thermostat hasn't reported any motion INSIDE THE HOME!"

E.g., a "smart" CCTV camera emits a packet; chances are, it *saw* something.  If your goal is not to be seen, then you could monitor
it's traffic (ignoring content) and see if some change in its visual
field is "noticed" or not.

Like trying to not be seen by a PIr controlled floodlight (by
moving slowly enough to represent "DC" to the detector)

Of course, with this in mind, one can take steps to confuse
and obfuscate anyone "watching" your activity.  E.g., irregular
"reports" from that camera look like traffic -- even if the
traffic contains no detected "signal".

But, adding this onto an existing product/protocol will likely
be evident and ineffective.  You have to bake these things in from
the ground up!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)