this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
416 points (99.5% liked)

Selfhosted

46653 readers
1041 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
416
Let’s Encrypt Begins Supporting IP Address Certificates (linuxiac.com)
submitted 1 day ago by KarnaSubarna@lemmy.ml to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Who benefits from this? Even though Let’s Encrypt stresses that most site operators will do fine sticking with ordinary domain certificates, there are still scenarios where a numeric identifier is the only practical choice:

Infrastructure services such as DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) – where clients may pin a literal IP address for performance or censorship-evasion reasons.
IoT and home-lab devices – think network-attached storage boxes, for example, living behind static WAN addresses.
Ephemeral cloud workloads – short-lived back-end servers that spin up with public IPs faster than DNS records can propagate.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 7 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I use a domain, but for homelab I eventually switched to my own internal CA.

Instead of having to do service.domain.tld it's nice to do service.lan.

[–] martin@lemmy.caliban.io 3 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Any good instructions you would recommend for doing this?

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 3 points 9 hours ago

I just use openssl"s built in management. I have scripts that set it up and generate a .lan domain, and instructions for adding it to clients. I could make a repo and writeup if you would like?

As the other commenter pointed out, .lan is not officially sanctioned for local use, but it is not used publicly and is a common choice. However you could use whatever you want.

[–] eneff@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

use the official home.arpa as specified in RFC 8375

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 3 points 9 hours ago

No thanks. I get some people agreed to this, but I'm going to continue to use .lan, like so many others. If they ever register .lan for public use, there will be a lot of people pissed off.

IMO, the only reason not to assign a top-level domain in the RFC is so that some company can make money on it. The authors were from Cisco and Nominum, a DNS company purchased by Akamai, but that doesnt appear to be the reason why. .home and .homenet were proposed, but this is from the mailing list:

  1. we cannot be sure that using .home is consistent with the existing (ab)use
  2. ICANN is in receipt of about a dozen applications for ".home", and some of those applicants no doubt have deeper pockets than the IETF does should they decide to litigate

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/PWl6CANKKAeeMs1kgBP5YPtiCWg/

So, corporate fear.