Let's address the /24 subnet limitation ipothetic removal

How do you identify the multiple nodes are by the same SNO?
How will you differentiate between someone wanting to run another node and someone just having a neighbor?
If by email address when registering that is easily changed and if by wallet people can just register another one though if it is against TOS.
Many isp’s offer multiple ip addresses you you can’t even guarantee the use of the same mode ip will track them.

Node selection only impacts uploads, TTFB probably is not as important as for downloads, though maybe I’m wrong. Also, TTFB already is rather long, 0.1% longer won’t make a difference.

However, I admit that I do not know how much this double aggregation would slow things down.

I believe I was thinking at nodes behind the same IP.

So why wouldn’t an SNO then just change that ip to get around the problem? Since it would be the same subnet there is no point doing it now - but there would be with this change.
Even home grade unifi routers have the ability to add multiple ip’s…

1 Like

Yes, maybe you’re right. Clever people always foud ways to get aroud rules.

14 nodes in total here
All in one apartment, on 1 PC.
All on VPNs.
All IP’s from different country
All has no neighbor node
(in 2 case i saw 1 or 2, but i changed the server instance, and it was alone again,
also my nodes are full now, so don’t need more filling)
All VPNs for total $10 a month.

I didn’t notice any limitations for me. Sure it adds latency for STORJ customers! TTFB.
Costs me $0,71 per node, its a lot Yes if my nodes are around 1 TB, but if it was 8-18TB then it’s like nothing for ability to fill 7TB in under a year. Like i was able to do with one node. Just couldn’t find right time to upgrade more HDDs, always more important things… but the setup is there!

Time. A configuration of a port forwarding with VPN is significantly easier for what i discovered.
No playing with Your home router at all.
You just make lets say 9 virtual machines on 1 PC, each with it’s own windows, and You install a VPN app, chose location, and in the panel of a VPN provider You just set the port forwarding on that location, and voilà!

It is. Upload is 15-30Mbps, per a node, and my connection is 1000/300 fiber so yea i can handle all nodes. its a perfect setup. bypassing all that /24 rule nonsense.
For 3 and half years working flawlessly.
So much of a decentralization of STORJ as of now.

Sure it is. For me.
Because i have found great VPNs, and i was searching back then, not gonna lie.
But for the network? and the future of STORJ? …
When it privilege big SNOs, that can go 18TB HDDs per node?
and buy VPNs? or some deal with data centers?

Sure it would. If bandwidth price for customers won’t go down, there would be equally slow HDD filling for everyone.
Now, only ones who either have 1 big HDD,
or bypass 24 rule with many nodes 1 location, get’s decent traffic, to fill nodes to the full.
If You get rid of /24, it will take that advantage out of them.
Now people in home who have 1 node, and want to add 2nd or more,
have to go big in TB so it would be worthy to pay for some VPNs additional IPs,
or get filled slowly.
It discourages small TB HDDs owners, and so the decentralization.
Because too many nodes in 1 physical place atm, imitating different locations, to bypas /24 rule, and You don’t even know how much % of a network.
If /24 rule would be gone, then at least, You would know what the real numbers are?
As of there were no need to pay for VPNs, or additional IPs pools?
Ppl would drop that costs happily.

But imho You would need to watch what data You are distributing to the same /24 pool,
You know, not too much pieces of the same file.
So there should still be some limitation to get data in same network,
but a reasonable one, not like that kind it is now with strict /24 rule.
So there would not be a repeat as with v2, like @Pentium100 mentioned.

How its prevents this? I though it encourage it!
I think they got larger address pools to choose from, than same /24
and they are using it, to bypass 24 rule.
Like in my example.
Tho VPNs are not data centers servers (VPS) but the VPNs traffic goes via data centers? i believe.

actually i didn’t realise i can drop those VPNs now, as my HDDs are full,
if im not going to expand HDDs space lol, ohhh man… still hesitate, if You going to nuke the network future with payouts lower by roughly half,
i don’t know if there’s any future for STORj at all.
tho, with bigger HDDs i would sure profit till the end!

So much of a provocation, but to be serious,
that’s why i think all here is like in clock mechanism, it interlocks itself.
if You take one gear out, a pinion, others are not working or malfunctioned.
Therefore, it is necessary to look holistically and use strategies that are known for their effectiveness, throughout history.

That’s why i wrote this here as You probbaly already saw,
i swear i was not on drugs, just passionate.

Is it better to support IP types except for the data centers? For example, www.ip2location.com tells your IP type as “Usage Type”. Then even if /24 filter is removed, it’s impossible to use VPS/VPN through the (honestly registered) data centers. But of course, it allows residential-proxies/-VPN still.

1 Like

ip2location does not always have accurate information, the “usage type” is not part of RIPE data or anything. One ISP had its IPs designated as datacenter until customer complained about it and then they contacted ip2location to tell them to fix the assignment.

As mentioned before, I don’t see a difference between a /24 and a /32 from a reliability perspective. a /24 isn’t really that big, only 256 addresses. It’s probably still in one data center, or in one neighborhood, and vulnerable to network outages.

I like an idea kind of mentioned earlier, that works within existing storj concepts. and that would be:

for additional nodes in a /24 (or maybe even something bigger like a /22? limit the bandwidth for nodes in the vetting period but after they are vetted, release the restriction.

this limit is already happened automatically: old and new nodes selected one from /24, but also a new one has a separate pool of 5% ingress from the customers, all new nodes shares it.
So, 2 new nodes will get half of the data share each from 5% selection for their /24 subnet.
Or maybe I did not get your suggestion?

No, no no…

First, decentralisation is important. Otherwise Storj is just another storage provider.

Second, people who think they will get more traffic if /24 limitation is removed are wrong. Everybody is smart and will deploy a bunch of nodes. Collectively, they will all look dumb.

Third, no deposits upfront. Just NO!
If you had to make a deposit for your first node, the Storj model, with amateur SNO’s with a bit of space to spare, would never work. I would not have started a node if I had to put money into it. Now that I have a feeling for the thing, I could do the math and decide, but for a first time SNO it would just not work.

I think only the “semi-professionals” come to the forum to discuss these things. I hope Storj management realizes this and doesn’t forget what Storj is about. A bunch of “amateurs” with a bit of space to spare ensuring true decentralisation (even though the satellites are a stain on the decentralisation, which should be better addressed).
Storj is not for semi-professionals. Their specific interests should be disregarded.

PS- Notice that I’m speaking against myself. I regard myself as a semi-professional. I run 6 nodes on 3 different IP/24. Truly decentralised, since I have only 1 IP at my home (and no VPS, VPN…).


Held amount is a good system. I don’t think that deposit is better. Held can just be higher if there is a need to remove subnet limit.


I agree this /24 limitation should be reviewed and may be an overkill to think data would be loss if something happens with those nodes behind that specific /24.

To start with there are broadband service providers that will have at least 255 different clients on different physical addresses behind a /24 which is already fair enough for diversity of environments, even considering a neighborhood, city or even region which is mostly the case.

Also one thing that needs to be reviewed is the need to run a different storagenode for each new disk you add which makes this scenario more restrict unnecessarily. If one has multiples disks at home let them share them with most efficiently possible and avoid making it less attractive to store data. Having more and more people willing to share resources is what should matter for a even robust Storj diversity, capacity and lower costs.

The storagenode software should not replace the system software. If you willing to use RAID you may do so, even if it’s not needed for the network, see RAID vs No RAID choice.
With /24 filter and ability to run several nodes they all work as a big one node, exactly what you want. In case of disk failure you will lose only this small part of your common data, not all as in case of RAID0.

1 Like

Hi @Alexey the point about using RAID in a device with multiple disks is quiet common specially in a local device with multiple disks that ease up things including disk replacement and I see no issues in that large RAID (on the top of a RAID5, 6 or even 10) be seen as a single disk to Storj network as long it is well maintained. I do understand that for a network system may not be needed, but in the other hand is not something that can cause a harm.
In fact the use of RAID (5, 6 or 10) in a local system avoids any single disk and amount of data be lost and a more complex process have to be conducted if there is a much easier and flexible solution available. If disks are used individually for each storagenode process some of them will be lost at some point and it is in analogy similar to loose a portion of a RAID 0.
RAID 0 should never be used for multiple disks in a array to serve Storj.

Correct me if I am wrong, but when the use of RAID is generally dissimulated and the provision of multiple storagenodes and there is this /24 restriction I understand the satellites may avoid adding more data into that ‘group’ of storagenode where that could receive more data and act as a more capable system.

The satellite just trying to make sure that each /24 subnet did not get pieces of the same segment, it doesn’t limit how much data it could receive.

unfortunately not the same. In case of one disk failure the RAID0 is totally dead, but separate nodes will survive. But better to do not discuss RAID vs No RAID again here, if you want to - we may continue in the related thread.

Subnet	Nodes in subnet

1 1380
2 244

How do this work? Is that one user?

I believe an IP that ends in a zero is usually some kind of gateway device. So, maybe a pool of users behind a proxy, VPN, NAT Pool, VPS, or similar.


First IP belongs to Hetzner, the second one to IONOS.

The exact IP is not ending in 0. These 2 IPs are displayed on Storj Net Info, as subnets. The 0 is just to show that it is the entire subnet.
From the number of nodes behind it, it makes sense to believe that the entire subnet belongs to one entity. And… Hetzner it is

1 Like