Airvpn should sell IP's to users as extra

[Jamertol 0]

I run a server in my home and I want it exposed to the internet, but I do not like that my home IP is exposed. It is a privacy concern and exposes my home internet to DDOS. I would love to be able to rent an IP from AirVpn so all the traffic from and to my server goes through the VPN connection. This would come at an extra cost, an option only for those who want it. I remember from years ago some VPN that offer this option. It would also help users who's ISP blocks certain ports, like the email port.

Is this something AirVPN would consider offering?

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

47 minutes ago, Jamertol said:

I run a server in my home and I want it exposed to the internet, but I do not like that my home IP is exposed. It is a privacy concern and exposes my home internet to DDOS. I would love to be able to rent an IP from AirVpn so all the traffic from and to my server goes through the VPN connection.

This is a paradoxon – you get your own IP and are directly identifiable and susceptible to DDoS again. What's the point?
Besides, AirVPN offers pseudonymous internet access through NAT. Port forwarding is an extra to ease setting up services like torrents, but it's not a focus.
 

[Jamertol 0]

6 hours ago, OpenSourcerer said:

This is a paradoxon – you get your own IP and are directly identifiable and susceptible to DDoS again. What's the point?
Besides, AirVPN offers pseudonymous internet access through NAT. Port forwarding is an extra to ease setting up services like torrents, but it's not a focus.
 

No. All the traffic that starts outbound goes through the normal vpn IP, the shared one. But the traffic that starts inbound for the server, happens through the unique IP, allowing my server real IP to remain anonymous, to be protected from DDOS, etc... Basically, some programs of my server I would have to route through one IP, the others through the other.

I understand this is not a service that AirVPN is offering right now. I am asking if this is something that AirVPN would consider offering to its users, for an extra fee. If it did, I would be interested.

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

7 hours ago, Jamertol said:

I am asking if this is something that AirVPN would consider offering to its users, for an extra fee. If it did, I would be interested. 

I think not. You're better off with another VPN provider if you need this kind of setup. This one is focused on privacy, and unique IPs undermine privacy to some extent.

[Jamertol 0]

1 hour ago, OpenSourcerer said:

I think not. You're better off with another VPN provider if you need this kind of setup. This one is focused on privacy, and unique IPs undermine privacy to some extent.

I disagree that such a service goes against privacy. It is a "poweruser" service and if well configured, it would not change the privacy status. But It is AirVPN decission, I understand you do not want to give this service. Thanks for the replies.

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

19 minutes ago, Jamertol said:

But It is AirVPN decission, I understand you do not want to give this service. Thanks for the replies.

Don't know what Staff's stance is towards it, though, so don't interpret too much into it. Please note the very first sentence of my signature.

[Jamertol 0]

18 minutes ago, OpenSourcerer said:

Don't know what Staff's stance is towards it, though, so don't interpret too much into it. Please note the very first sentence of my signature.

I see, I confused you for staff.

Btw, you are wrong when you say it would undermine privacy. It would actually help privacy. You have to think that we are talking a case where I am running a server that needs to be uniquely identified in the Internet. This is not the case for other people, and those other people do not need to use this service I am asking for. But for my case, tell me which option is more private:

Option 1: All the outbound traffic from my server and any other devices goes through the VPN and the inbound traffic to my server goes through the IP address of my home.

Option 2: All the outbound traffic from my server and any other devices goes through the VPN and the inbound traffic to my server goes through the individual IP address I rent to AirVPN.

Obviously, in any of these two options I am more exposed than if I did not run those services, like it is the case of a lot of people.

But if I need or want to run those services, Option 2 is clearly more private than Option 1. In option 1 my home IP is public, which implies people can know the location of my home and more. Having the individual IP from AirVPN (or another VPN) is the best option for privacy IF I need or want to run those services in the server in my home.

Since AirVPN already has the infrastructure in place, they should consider offer this service for an extra fee.

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

19 minutes ago, Jamertol said:

You have to think that we are talking a case where I am running a server that needs to be uniquely identified in the Internet.

In this case, you should probably consider a VPS. Cheaper than a VPN, does not reveal your ISP address, is dedicated to hosting server crap and is much less of a headache to set up.

Your options are invalid because if you frame it that way your option 2 is the obvious answer. That's no way to offer a comparison.
 

27 minutes ago, Jamertol said:

Having the individual IP from AirVPN (or another VPN) is the best option for privacy IF I need or want to run those services in the server in my home.

Privacy should be about blending in, not standing out with a unique IP address. Therefore, your argument about it being the "best" option is invalid because the truly best option for privacy is how AirVPN operates now: With a NATed, shared IP address. Everyone is 1.2.3.4, everyone can be reached on 1.2.3.4 (after port forwarding, of course). If you can be reached with 1.2.3.5 under www.jamertol.biz, what's the difference if that website can also be reached on 123.45.67.8 which happens to be your home ISP IP address? Sure, they won't have your name and address right away, but still you're unique.

Besides, the only option for you would be an IPv6 prefix. If I recall correctly, IPv4 has been in a state of address space exhaustion for more than ten years now. Buying v4 address space is expensive stuff (besides largely being AS operator stuff now), not sure it's right with AirVPN's goals.

[Jamertol 0]

You can not be saying that self hosting from home should never be an option?

Using a VPS means having all your data in someone else computer.

I would have no problem using IPv6. I hope AirVPN considers it.

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

9 hours ago, Jamertol said:

You can not be saying that self hosting from home should never be an option?

Never wrote anything close to that. You need to get into a mindset of using the right tool for the right job, and although I vividly practice and recommend self-hosting, it's simply not suited for all use cases. As it is with most things in life, choosing a tool for an use case is a multi-factor consideration, and there might be a point where sticking to your favorite way exceeds the cost of some of those factors. It goes for local hosting vs. remote hosting as it does for things like the choice between open source vs. proprietary.

To give you one good indication why I think your wish won't be fulfilled is the fact that IPv6 is run in NAT mode, meaning, everyone can theoretically have IPv6 UGAs but no one gets them, even though it's the "natural" way of running the IPv6 stack. It makes people unique, and it's an anti-feature in a VPN service focused on privacy.

Let me suggest a different approach: Reverse proxies. Rent the cheapest VPS possible, but instead of hosting the service host a proxy. No data on the VPS ISP, but give people the VPS IP regardless because the forwarding is done in the background, in connection with things like fail2ban you could even implement your own little anti-DDoS. Also native v4 and v6 support, all ports are free for you to use and the ability to proxy multiple services that way, on their default ports if need be. Only thing is, you need to read up on how to configure a reverse proxy.

[Jamertol 0]

That is obviously an option I have contemplated. And I do not have to look on how to do it. But since AirVPN has all the infrastructure set up, I think it might interest them to offer the service.

And again, you keep falsely saying what I asked from AirVPN interferes with privacy. Having AirVPN offer me an individual IP or me running a reverse proxy in a VPS, your lastest suggestions, offers EXACTLY THE SAME LEVEL OF PRIVACY. I could even say the AirVPN option offers a bit more privacy because I trust them more than some random VPS provider.

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

8 hours ago, Jamertol said:

Having AirVPN offer me an individual IP or me running a reverse proxy in a VPS, your lastest suggestions, offers EXACTLY THE SAME LEVEL OF PRIVACY.

True, and none of those offer a higher privacy level than how AirVPN operates now. Why would AirVPN implement a feature leaving everyone with less privacy than before?
Is there any reason you don't like the shared IP thing?

We've had these discussions in the past as well, not necessary about dedicated IPs but similar things where people asked for certain anti-features in exchange for more money. AirVPN proved that, while money is obviously of some concern to keep being operational, customers' privacy is not traded for a better quarterly report here. Maybe it's a factor leading you to write that you trust AirVPN more, but it also means AirVPN is not implementing all features people suggest because they saw them in other VPN providers. A very good example is Wireguard support which is still not here while some VPN providers already celebrate their support anniversary.

[Jamertol 0]

3 hours ago, OpenSourcerer said:

True, and none of those offer a higher privacy level than how AirVPN operates now. Why would AirVPN implement a feature leaving everyone with less privacy than before?
Is there any reason you don't like the shared IP thing?

I am not sure how to be more clear.

I love the shared IP thing and I plan on keep using it for what I am using it right now, even after I get the private IP address or VPS or whatever. The issue that I do not seem to be able to make you understand, is that there are services that can not run in this configuration. For those services, and only for those services, I want a private IP address. None of the traffic that right now goes through the shared IP address would go through the private IP addresss. Let me repeat this, NONE of the traffic that right now goes through the shared IP address would go through the private IP address, it would continue to go through the shared IP address just like now. Only the traffic that can not work through the shared IP adddress would go through the private IP address. Understand now? There is no change AT ALL on privacy.

And other users would not see a change. Users that do not want to run those services should NOT get a private IP address. Only users who need to run a servie who would not work though a shared IP address should.

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

1 hour ago, Jamertol said:

I am not sure how to be more clear.

I am not sure, either. Let's just agree to disagree, see if Staff chimes in on the action.

[dIecbasC 38]

Curious Jamertol, which services can’t you use? I haven’t found anything yet I can run over a Air tunnel (or proxy yet). 
The issue of privacy I guess is the compromise on the back end, there is no mechanism to store per user config data hence why you can not purchase additional connections etc.

and for clarity, I’m not staff either.  

 

[Jamertol 0]

3 hours ago, dIecbasC said:

Curious Jamertol, which services can’t you use? I haven’t found anything yet I can run over a Air tunnel (or proxy yet). 
The issue of privacy I guess is the compromise on the back end, there is no mechanism to store per user config data hence why you can not purchase additional connections etc.

and for clarity, I’m not staff either.  

 

For example a mail server.

[dIecbasC 38]

Its tough to reliably host mail from a residential address, but I can see why that service could be interesting. Most services tend to block port 25 due to folks spamming away, including Air sadly. Having your source appear from any VPN provider isn’t likely serve your IP reputation best due to neighbors who are likely to abuse sooner or later. 

I lean to agreeing with the poster earlier, VPS or if that makes you uncomfortable because you want your data on your hardware, colo a server of your own. 

 

[flat4 79]

For the lay man, that's me.

You want Airvpn to sell you a IP address so you can do illegal activities disguise as running a mail server so when the FBI or whoever come knocking at the door it  not your house but an ip registered to someone else.

Is this basically the gist of the post?

[Brainbleach 5]

On 4/1/2021 at 3:36 PM, flat4 said:

For the lay man, that's me.

You want Airvpn to sell you a IP address so you can do illegal activities disguise as running a mail server so when the FBI or whoever come knocking at the door it  not your house but an ip registered to someone else.

Is this basically the gist of the post?

Maybe the guy just wants to host a minecraft server or something chill

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

5 hours ago, Brainbleach said:

Maybe the guy just wants to host a minecraft server or something chill

You don't need a dedicated IP to host something as mundane as a Minecraft server.

[Staff 9972]

@Jamertol

Hello!

Thank you for your request. We're sorry, at the moment we have no plans to offer dedicated IP addresses.

Kind regards
 

[Jamertol 0]

Ok, thank you for considering it.