Comment on PSA: Update your Tailscale!
hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 4 days agoThis is pedantics, but technically what you are talking about can be achieved with wireguard too. You are talking about using STUN/TURN to do NAT holepunching to establish a connection between two wireguard clients.
Wireguard is just the vpn protocol. Tailscale even uses it. How the connection is established, is up to the user. So what you’re really talking about is Tailscale vs “how most people set up Wireguard”.
The reason why I make this distinction is because it would be nice if somebody made an easy self-hosted way to do the STUN/TURN stuff for plajn wireguard.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 4 days ago
There’s Headscale, but it can’t be fully selfhosted because you need an external host if both clients are behind NAT.
hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
afaik Headscale is designed for Tailscale and not plain Wireguard. It’s overkill for plain wireguard.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 4 days ago
I mean, “plain WG” doesn’t have the ability to connect multiple sites seamlessly, nevermind from behind NAT. That’s what Headscale/Tailscale do, they enable multiple WG backends to connect together on the fly into a common VLAN, with almost zero extra config.
It may seem overkill if you only want to connect two sites but once you solve this problem for 2 it’s basically also solved for N so why not take advantage of the capability.
hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
Doesn’t Tailscale do a lot more, like ACLs and tailnet lock and a web ui and everything? I thought Headscale was trying to provide the same, though I admit I’ve never tried it myself