If scale is a concern, then you want to be reducing drag as much as possible. Database lookups and edits can get expensive, so maybe just avoid them outright: DokuWiki only requires a web server with PHP. It keeps content as plain files, making it easy to serve up and to back up.

But it’s often said that perfection is when nothing can be taken away, so what if we remove PHP as well? In this case, we need the content to already be rendered HTML. And we can do that, since there’s a body of site generation packages that build from Markdown files. I found this one while randomly searching: https://codeberg.org/milofultz/swiki

At this point, it’s just a plain web server that dishes out static HTML files. Such simplicity will withstand most AI scrapers, because the cost per request is now absurdly low. And caching a static site is not particularly difficult. Indeed, if the sum total of the wiki content is small enough, it might even fit into something like Codeberg Pages, which means we’ve eliminated even the web server (though this would depart from c/selfhosted).

What seems to be missing from that swiki package – but is entirely feasible – would be to have all content in Markdown files and live in a Git repo, and the Git history itself is used as the Wiki history. This means your pages would retain the classic wiki change log, so that it can all be generated from a Git repo that’s small enough to keep on a floppy disk.

Simplify, then add lightness.

This and the comment it replies to make the categorical error which is to assume that NAT exists as part-and-parcel to firewalling. This is not the case. Many American university and corporate networks do still adhere to the end-to-end principle by giving every device a public IP address. They can do this because they are among the few legacy entities that actually have enough for their needs, such as a Class A (aka /8) subnet on Legacy IP. At the same time, these entities employ firewalls that don’t allow unsolicited inbound traffic (and sometimes also block disallowed outbound traffic).

NAT is not a firewall, and the OP correctly points out that by using NAT or CGNAT, the end to end principle is demolished, with no way for the victims to recover. OP mentions “firewalls” exactly twice, to compare how they are not firewalls and are still necessary in spite of NAT. Nobody is credibly suggesting that everyone should switch to IPv6 without a firewall. Every single domestic router for the past two decades has included a firewall, and that would not change in an all IPv6 world.

I wish to reiterate an example I’ve used in the past, which is that the most famous address in the USA is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC. Anyone can send letters and parcels directly to this address as-written, with no need to rewrite the address to first arrive at the Secret Service. And yet, all such parcels and letters will be thoroughly scrutinized by the Secret Service anyway at an off-site facility, and some indeed will be let through to the occupants of the residence. NAT is address mutilation, and the United States Postal Service does not require nor allow that.

What are these “built in listeners” that you speak of, and which OS’s can I find this on?

Also TCP will work before UDP. For whatever reason firewalls and such do weird things with UDP traffic.

This doesn’t really explain why troubleshooting is more difficult, but rather that firewalls often cause trouble for UDP. My question was “why would diagnosing a UDP problem be harder than anything else?”, not “why is UDP more problematic?”. I’m fully aware that some firewalls are configured with absurd parameters, like blocking ICMP, QUIC, or even TLS in some bizarre situations. But my tools for debugging network troubles have always been the same: tcpdump for passive tracing, nc to coerce an active response, and icmp/icmp6 ping for basic connectivity and MTU verification.

Whether it’s UDP or anything other protocol, those tools have proven sufficient for me. Do you use something else?

I’ll add some color to this post.

The original FTP is, frankly, a monster of a protocol. Very useful, but an anomalous protocol that even without NAT breaking the end-to-end principle, it is unlikely to have survived modern corporate firewall rulesets in any case. The fact that FTP was even ported for TCP is its own historical quirk.

BTW, that is the term which this post is missing: the end-to-end principle is the design philosophy that the network itself should not have to perform work on payloads transmitted, except to carry it towards the destination. This also implies that no fields or bits should be modified in transit, once it leaves the sender; encap/decap restores the fields so that the receiver is none the wiser.

NAT breaks end-to-end in two respects: corruption of the original sender, and corruption of L4 port numbers. Note that Legacy IP also violated end-to-end, when packets are fragmented due to MTU issues. With IPv6, fragmentation by the network is disallowed outright, and the technical case for NAT is non-existent.

There’s something to be said about adopters of NAT, that they were facing a Hobson’s choice: use NAT so that they could connect early dial-up users to the emerging Internet, or reinvent the 20 year experiment of the Internet so that it could scale properly. In 1995, IPv6 did not exist so they made the only real choice available.

In the year 2026 though, that argument doesn’t hold water: it is a choice to continue to ignore the dual-stack and IPv6-only internet. There’s a quote that all sufficiently complex technical problems are in-fact political, and this is that: the modern case for Legacy IP and NAT is rooted in inertia, resource scarcity (eg hyperscale cloud companies buying up IP subnets), and recalcitrance by professionals that abdicate their responsibility to their clients to pursue the available technology.

There is no colorable technical rationale for why IPv6 best practices cannot be adopted today for most organizations, when all network hardware, all major consumer and enterprise OS’s, and all mobile phones support v6. Note that I said “best practices”, because a minority of orgs such as certain American ISPs have undertaken truly bonkers decisions that are putting us on track for the very same sins as Legacy IP.

The fact that some ISPs assign nothing but a single /128 via DHCP6 is absurd: this malpractice perpetuates the same problem as NAT44, except that there’s no good excuse for it. Even the most delusional of ISPs will never run out of /128 addresses in their assigned /32. Per best practice, even handing out /48’s to customers is not a problem either, because that’s 65536 customers and if that’s really a problem, just ask the RIR for another /32, which they can do as RIR dues-paying members. There is no practical limit, except that some people just cannot math properly to see that there’s no practical limit. When a technical solution to a technical problem fails because of innumeracy by those tasked with implementing it, then that’s so much worse than any 1990s workaround.

I’ve harped a lot about IPv6 because its strength today is that it’s technically competent, future-proofed, and most importantly, practitioners that saw the first travesty of NAT will not allow a redux to play out with IPv6. The technical reasons to deploy NAT66 are non-existent: it is always a workaround for political issues.

I can (just barely) accept NPTv6 as a like subnet-for-subnet mapping that does not harm L4, but that’s still glossing over a political issue. IPv6 gave network engineers real choices in numbers and administering their networks, and while some will squander it, I will be encouraging people to not let that happen.

Why would UDP be any more difficult than TCP (or anything else) for troubleshooting? If nothing else, it should be easier because there are no stateful connections and every packet is “fire and forget”. Now, as a tunneling technology, WG might be more difficult than a simple client/server socket-driven application, but that just means some routing tables need to be inspected and you have to understand IP subnets. In any case, you’d still want to obtain packet traces from both ends of the WG tunnel.

The thing is, if you don’t wish to port-forward on Legacy IP nor open firewall ports for IPv6, then the only other option is to reach out to some sort of relay server. But whether your own VPS fulfils that role or you use Tailscale’s DERP/TURN relays, the same class of latency and bandwidth issues will still erupt. So you’d still have to debug them, although you presumably would have better visibility into diagnosing issues with your VPS relay.

Generally speaking, if Tailscale isn’t working for you, then all other solutions will increase in complexity, not decrease.

Answering the ultimate question, I operate and secure my SSH server, with port 22 open only for IPv6 inbound. There’s no NAT, so I don’t have to deal with debugging odd port mangling. The SSH server only allows key auth, and all password attempts are logged and blocked, because there can’t be any legitimate traffic like that. On this SSH server would be my mounts for backups.

Contributors: Claude

Please kindly see Rule 8 of this community and its associated post.