you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

@ruffsl I see no desirability to putting a man-in-the-middle of a web connection. Cloud flare = cloud censor and spy.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I don't use it for any production site, but it works really well for development, though. I can run multiple docker services on my local machine, add a cloudflared service for each of them and forget about port conflicts, etc. To do that without cloudflared, I'd have to setup a traefik proxy and mess with my home router.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, the centralization of public Internet infrastructure around Cloud flare has been concerning, not only as a single point of failure but also in terms of consolidation of trust.

    As a prior student workout a public IP deep behind several NATs, with little funds for self hosting hobbies, these kinds of tunnel services were a handy gateway in getting started.

    Although, I hope ISP adoption of IPv6 or cheaper bandwidth quotas for VPS providers help compete on this front for self hosting networking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    @ruffsl I have no bandwidth quota on my vps's, only memory and disk. See eskimo.com/services/virtual-pr… further our shared hosting is extremely robust, this friendica site runs on it, friendica.eskimo.com/ and runs around 7-16 hits/second (between slow and peak times) and response time is generally between 240-500ms which is better than most major providers. It is doable, for me the big issue is you are proxying https, is that data getting un-encrypted / re-encrypted in the chain? If so do you really want them looking at all of your traffic?

  • source
  • parent