I think I misunderstood you. The one I was talking about was a bug in proxmox. If it’s an issues inside lxc, you can replicate the Ubuntu networking stack using nmcli or use systemd-networkd and resolved directly. It behaves identically as far as I know.

Last time I checked this was a known bug. DHCPv6 would even cause many containers to not start or to not get an address.

I understand this part :) I use a fairly complex firewall at work though I only know bits and pieces from reading different manuals. I think the part I didn’t understand was how exactly the routing worked differently in IPv4 vs v6. I get that because NAT happens in IPv4, packets can’t be routed at all without the firewall/router but I wasn’t sure what was the mechanism by which v6 made sure that packets went through the router, especially when you have stuff like v6 DHCP relays.

My ISP dynamically allocates a /64. I don’t even know why they do that.

So even though the device has a public address, the route is through the firewall, hence the ability to filter traffic?

Happy to help :) I have ddns configured with duckdns and it’s been pretty smooth. The only problem will be if you’re behind cgnat.

Why not use dynamic DNS since this isn’t something mission critical?

I love motion eye for being super simple. It doesn’t have many advanced features but is much less finicky than Zm/shinobi.

I love motion eye for being super simple. It doesn’t have many advanced features but is much less finicky than Zm/shinobi.

I have exactly the same setup 😀

There is a docker container which has transmission and openVPN. The other option is to use any VPN container such as gluetun and route transmission container’s network through that using docker network mode.