Official forum for Utopia Community
You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
What about installing a VPN on your router and then all the traffic will be encrypted. I suggest you get one that is capable of playing Netflix and Hulu, as those allow for higher and unrestricted amount of data.
Just to clarify, do you mean double nat as first NAT at your Service Provider, usually called CGNAT and then the second NAT in your own router, which also acts as UPNP?
It should only work OK if the CGNAT blocks only on the lower TACP poarts (under 1000) and leaves the higher ones permanently open. In this case you will have effectively a single NAT situation.
UPNP feature in the router is more important, most come default enabled but some are disabled ny default and must be enabled for the UAM to work.
<div class="quotebox"><cite>Posi;1258 wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><p>Yeah its a good question, i'm waiting impacient a good answer</p></div></blockquote></div><p>I found an opinion among the Russian community about those behind Utopia. And if you want if you want I can translate, yes the author says that it is an assumption, if you are interested, I can translate for you in English to study.</p><p>Here's a link to the video: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h8Kt58t7io&ab_channel=Pulse" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h8Kt58 … nnel=Pulse</a></p>
I watched this video; if I can take anything from it, it demonstrates how diligent the developers are in setting up the clear_net part of this venture.
The author of the video concludes by saying "after all the information I provided you still want to give your money to someone you do not know, that's you choice - I personally would not" - or along those lines. What money - who gets the money in a truly distributed network?
I watched the video to see any proof of who stays behind Utopia - and I've got "disappointed" as there was no proof or event a hint of exposure - well done the developers!
The author of the video clearly made it to monetize this click-byte in YouTube.
The reality is that there will be many actors coming to Utopia with as many agendas - some will share the world view of the 1984 Group, some (hopefully only few) will not.
I see Utopia as a superbly designed and executed platform with a clear communicated manifesto and parameters - I hope it is adopted by the masses, grows exponentially and lives in eternity.
And the CES question - easy answer - People affected by SEC belong to a different world, WEB 2.0. Utopia is something else.
<p>...Interesting, would one know why would one (or many) UAM instances started suddenly portscan a specific address, in my case 169.254.172.2, which is outside of the scope of the iptables rules?</p>
I know it is not cool to reply to own post, but this is to share how I resolved it.
It appears that the uam app (not sure why, there are no logs) is constantly portscanning this particular address which falls within the APIPA range of IP addesses while starting (and the miner goes on and off while it does that) so it ends up annoying the network routers.
To fix the network issue I just added a new line to the iptables.v4:
-A DOCKER-ISOLATION-STAGE-1 -d 169.254.0.0/16 -i docker0 ! -o docker0 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
and then reloaded the iptables.v4 as described by the OP.
It is amazing to see how much APIPA traffic is rejected by the netfilter while the container starts, before processing its first block (+/- 45 minutes!)
Now, to solve another mystery - why some containers portscan that APIPA IP range and some have no problem and process blocks straight away - maybe it has to do with the network resources on my server???
Superb how-to, the best I've seen in ages!
Followed to the dot, all worked 100% - installed portainer to see all behaving superbly and civilised - nice feature of the portainer is to look the logs of the non-gui instance - magic! - in addition to the stats.
Did not get greedy, but tried to push the number of the instances to the memory limits until it started swapping and things got interesting.
Hetzner bot eventually sent me a Network abuse notification.
Interesting, would one know why would one (or many) UAM instances started suddenly portscan a specific address, in my case 169.254.172.2, which is outside of the scope of the iptables rules?
Cudos to the author - you remind me of my early bitcoin days when I wrote and published a simple script to configure and run a headless GPU server that got downloaded over 10k times back in 2010.
Pages: 1