Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Predictive failures
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 22:51:37 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <uvno1h$1efe9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uvjn74$d54b$1@dont-email.me> <uvjobr$dfi2$1@dont-email.me>
 <uvkn71$ngqi$2@dont-email.me>
 <uvkrig$30nb$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <uvl2gr$phap$2@dont-email.me> <uvm7f5$pvu$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <uvmaet$1231i$2@dont-email.me>
 <uvmca4$up7$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <uvmjmt$140d2$1@dont-email.me> <uvnlon$l6nl$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 07:51:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2b43e3ad6cfda17a11cedcbd329c2ac9";
	logging-data="1523145"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19e5Vl8PVoq/r83O8kckoUH"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dlvy57hQUjFiMlxU9xdCxYTXnyk=
In-Reply-To: <uvnlon$l6nl$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2395

On 4/16/2024 10:12 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
>> There is no need for a manufacturer to interpose themselves in such
>> "remote access".  Having the device register with a DDNS service
>> cuts out the need for the manufacturer to essentially provide THAT
>> service.
> 
> Someone still needs to provide DDNS.

Yes, but ALL they are providing is name resolution.  They aren't
processing your data stream or "adding any value", there.
So, point your DNS at an IP that maps to the DDNS service
of your choice when the device "registers" with it!

Manufacturer can abandon a product line and your hardware STILL WORKS!

> Yes, UPNP has been a thing for several generations of routers now.
> but browswers have become fussier about port numbers too. also some
> customers are on Carrier Grade NAT, I don't think that UPNP can traverse
> that. IPV6 however can avoid the CGNAT problem.
> 
> It's an ease of use vs quality of service problem.
>