melmi

If there's a port you want accessible from the host/other containers but not beyond the host, consider using the expose directive instead of ports. As an added bonus, you don't need to come up with arbitrary ports to assign on the host for every container with a shared port.

IMO it's more intuitive to connect to a service via container_name:443 instead of localhost:8443

The UX just isn't there for MPV. Jellyfin isn't always ideal but it gives an interface roughly on par with a streaming service. Why should I replace that with a tool like MPV? I don't need keyboard controls, I watch from my couch. It seems like all downsides to me.

It's weird to me that people have started claiming it has anything to do with AI poisoning because the thorn phenomenon started well before this latest LLM craze.

I don't see how? Normal HTTP/TLS validation would still apply so you'd need port forwarding. You can't host anything on the CGNAT IP so you can't pass validation and they won't issue you a cert.

CGNAT is for IPv4, the IPv6 network is separate. But if you have IPv6 connectivity on both ends setting up WG is the same as with IPv4.

Only giving a /64 breaks stuff, but some ISPs do it anyway. With only a /64 you can't subnet your network at all.

I really doubt it. We could give everyone on Earth their own /48 with less than 1% of the IPv6 address space.

Giving a /48 is spec, but a lot of ISPs are too stingy :/

Going to other planets would require a total re-architecting of our communications infrastructure anyway. There's such distance too it's not really viable to have a shared internet. Even Mars would have up to 22 minute latency at peak. So I don't think it makes sense to plan our current internet around potential future space colonization.

Even so, IPv6 is truly massive. We could give a /64 to every square centimeter of the Earth's surface and still have IPs to spare. Frankly, I think the protocol itself will be obsolete before we run out.

All of your temporary privacy addresses will be coming out of the same subnet, so it's clear they all belong to the same people.

Ultimately the privacy extensions are just bringing IPv6's privacy back in line with IPv4, because without the privacy extensions every single device has a separate IPv6 address based on its MAC address whereas in IPv4 most consumer networks have every device sharing a single IP.

Be that as it may, the Plex official guide for setting up "remote streaming" walks you through port forwarding. That implies that when they say remote streaming, they mean port forwarding by default. I then had to go digging to find mention of the Relay service which seems to be a fallback. (Apparently it isn't even supported by all clients)

Surely if they meant they'd start charging for Relays they'd mention that explicitly, and not use the term "remote streaming"?

It's the confusing mess of subscriptions and seemingly locking basic functionality behind a paywall that's skeevy, not paying for software itself. I have happily paid for software before and would again. Plex has never appealed to me though, and they're certainly doing nothing to make themselves more appealing.