Comment on ISP put me behind NAT

• Dave@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This page says (at the very bottom):

  Tailscale can route its packets peer-to-peer over IPv4 or IPv6, with and without NAT, multi-layer NAT, or CGNAT in the path.

  source

  • farcaller@fstab.sh ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yeah, you’re absolutely correct. I misread that thinking OP would have the CG NAT endpoint and taikscsle on the same physical device, which, I still think, would be a problem: you’d have two interfaces for 100.64.0.0/10. But if CG NAT terminates on the modem and you run taikscale on devices connected to it them there’s surely no issue at all.

    source

    • c10l@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I run it on my router which has the CG-NAT IP address.

      Whilst you’re right that it could clash, it’s very unlikely (a 1 in 4194302 chance), I imagine Tailscale would detect the clash and change IPs though I could be wrong as it never happened to me (and probably never will - though in all fairness it will eventually happen to someone).

      source

      • farcaller@fstab.sh ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I went looking into how that works, and, apparently, tailscale adds individual node routes (in table 52). So yeah, you have very low chances of getting into trouble even if you have an interface with 100.64/10.

        source
• c10l@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Been using Tailscale behind CG-NAT for years. It works wonderfully and very rarely needs to route through the DERP infrastructure - it’s almost always a P2P connection.

  source
• Greg@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I haven’t had any issues running Tailscale and cloudflared on the same machines

  source

  • farcaller@fstab.sh ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Sorry, I meant the OPs modem.

    source