logoalt Hacker News

plantinthebokyesterday at 7:52 PM6 repliesview on HN

What's the actual win here? Avoiding relay latency in the rare cases Tailscale can't punch through NAT? If that's it, a $3 VPS running Headscale seems simpler. The complexity feels like you're optimizing for the 5% case while adding permanent vendor lock in. What am I missing?


Replies

zrailyesterday at 9:59 PM

Tailscale has what they call Peer Relays now to help solve this problem:

https://tailscale.com/blog/peer-relays-beta

killingtime74yesterday at 8:12 PM

For many homelabbers, just being cheap and avoiding the $3 VPS, that's it

show 2 replies
codethieftoday at 11:12 AM

What does Headscale have to do with NAT hole punching? I believe what you actually mean is setting up a relay, see the link in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45948806 .

k_bxyesterday at 8:21 PM

$3 VPS running Headscale is not simpler since you won't be able to run both headscale and tailscale on your end user machines, I don't recommend it.

The solution we've found is running a white IP container (or VPS) which looks like regular Wireguard outside, while inside it "forwards" to your existing tailscale network.

I don't remember if we use https://github.com/gravitl/netmaker or https://github.com/juhovh/tailguard

Also see: https://tailscale.com/blog/peer-relays-beta

throwaway678339yesterday at 8:09 PM

I don't think you are missing anything. They have a bunch of half baked features like this that aren't as robust as real security vendors and lock you in just like you said.

josteinkyesterday at 8:11 PM

Maybe I’m misunderstanding something…

But are you accusing someone of promoting vendor lock-in (cloudflare) while at the same time promoting vendor lock-in (tailscale)?

If you’re ok with vendor lock-in, shouldn’t you in theory be ok with any vendor?

show 2 replies