I am extremely excited by the boring announcement this week A Boring Announcement: Free Tunnels for Everyone saying Argo Tunnel is not charged by bandwidth anymore.
However, I would like to double check that my potential usage is valid within what is being discussed.
Our application runs on a computer and includes a web server so that we can remotely connect for support and low volume API calls. This is an app, and it runs on several machines within a single office. If each of these machines was to run an argo tunnel (probably using named tunnels) so that each machine could potentially have a unique DNS address, that would be totally awesome - but is this potentially “too much” somewhere?
Currently, we have IT techs go into the “offices” and open a port on firewall to one or two master machines, and sometimes a port for all machines. While this works, we would much prefer argo tunnels due to ease and improved security.
From an accounts perspective, each “office” are independent, unrelated to each other, customers of ours. They would generally sign up for Free or Pro accounts.
And, yes, we already have shed loads of security around what we currently do - but with argo tunnels we could potentially get much better
As this is outbound only, could this also be used to host a website using Starlink instead of a classic cable/fibre connection? Starlink cannot currently offer static IP (afaik). Not expecting high reliability, just something functional for low volume use.