I wanted to run my VPN/Tailscale setup past you, see if anybody has suggestions on how I could do things better.
- Setup: home LAN (
10.0.0.0/24
), router+DNS on10.0.0.1
, server running docker containers on10.0.0.2
. - LAN DNS points
*.local.dom.tld
to the server, public DNS points*.dom.tld
to my dynamic public IP. - Containers run in bridge mode with host, expose ports on host IPs via “ports:” mapping.
- NPM with LE certs also in container, exposes
10.0.0.2:443
, forwards to various other services.
Goals for Tailscale:
- Accessing HTTP services via NPM from my phone when away from home.
- Exposing select UDP and TCP non-HTTP services such as syncthing (:22000) or deluge RCP admin (:58846) to other tailnet devices or to phone on the go.
Goals in general:
- Some containers need to expose ports on the LAN.
- Some containers need to expose ports via Tailscale.
- Some containers need to broadcast on the LAN (DLNA stuff) – but I don’t want them broadcasting to Tailscale.
- Generally speaking I’d like to explicitly control what’s exposed from each container on either LAN or Tailscale.
- I’d like to avoid hacking images with Dockerfile. I can make my own images to do stuff, just don’t want to keep up with hacking other images.
How I progresed with Tailscale:
- First tried running it directly on the host. Good: tailnet IP (let’s call it
100.64.0.2
) available on the host’s default network stack. Containers can use “ports:” to map to100.64.0.2
(tailscale) and/or10.0.0.2
(LAN). Bad: tailscale would mess with/etc/resolv.conf
on host. Also bad: tailscale0 on host picked up stuff that binds to0.0.0.0
. - Moved tailscale to a container running on the host network stack (
network_mode: host
). Made it leave/etc/resolv.conf
alone. tailscale0 on host stack still picks up everything on0.0.0.0
.
This is kinda where I’m stuck. I can make the tailscale container bridged which would put the tailscale0 interface inside the container. It wouldn’t pick up 0.0.0.0
from host but how would I publish ports to it?
- The tailscale recommended way of doing it is by putting other containers in the tailscale’s container network stack (
network_mode: container:tailscale
). This would prevent said containers from using “ports:” to map to host anymore. Also, everything they publish locally would end up on tailscale0 whether I like it or not. - Tailscale has an env var TS_DEST_IP that can mirror another IP. I could allocate an IP on host eth0 like
10.1.1.1
, mirror that from the tailscale container, and target it from other containers explicitly with “ports:” when I want to publish a port to tailscale. Downside:10.1.1.1
would be in the host’s network stack so still picks up0.0.0.0
. - I could bridge the tailscale container with other containers on a private subnet, say
192.168.1.0/24
and usetailscale serve
to forward specific ports to other containers over that subnet. Unfortunatelyserve
is fairly limited; it can’t do UDP and technically it refuses to forward TCP either to non-localhost (but you can dump the serve config to JSON, and hack that config, and use it withTS_SERVE_CONFIG=
🤮). - I could bridge tailscale with other containers and create a special container with a fixed IP on that subnet, mirror the IP from tailscale, and use iptables on that container to forward specific ports to other containers. This would actually solve everything I want except…
- If I ever want to use another VPN which doesn’t have the mirror feature. I don’t know how I’d deal with that.
d13@programming.dev 6 months ago
This doesn’t exactly match your goals, but you may be able to adapt it or take pieces from it.
I have containers running on two subnets:
Subnet 1 has a DNS server, which resolves all of my services to IPs on either subnet.
I have Tailscale set up on a machine as a subnet router (directing to Subnet 1).
Result:
This is nice because my apps don’t care which network I’m on, they just use the same URL to connect. And the sensitive stuff (usually management tools) are not accessible remotely.
It’s also ridiculously simple: Only one Tailscale service is running at home.
This does not solve your issue of broadcasting vs not broadcasting, though. There’s probably other things missing as well. But maybe it’s a start?