Fly.io's blog posts are incredible, they really seem to really enjoy what they do and want to share what they've made with everyone else. I love them for that. I wish that more companies could be like this and skip the corporate BS, it shows that they really have something outstanding to offer.
Our User-Mode WireGuard Year
61–70 of 169 posts
Re: Our User-Mode WireGuard Year
#62Because 'sho_hn brought this up, here's a stab at a pro/con list of building TCP/IP directly into our API the way `flyctl` does: Pro: + Can just run "native" SSH directly over it (or, in our case, use x/crypto/ssh, without modification). + Lets `flyctl` offers a `flyctl proxy` command to users, so they can plug their own programs into whatever application they need to use, without asking us to change some proxy we ru…
How complete is the ssh implementation? I'm thinking I probably want to at least run git/hg push, and maybe even do port forwarding.
You probably shouldn't do port forwarding on Fly.io; if you're running into an actual need for that, we should talk about extending our network access control model.
Re: Our User-Mode WireGuard Year
#63Fly.io's blog posts are incredible, they really seem to really enjoy what they do and want to share what they've made with everyone else. I love them for that. I wish that more companies could be like this and skip the corporate BS, it shows that they really have something outstanding to offer.
Re: Our User-Mode WireGuard Year
#64Not sure what happened there. The processor seems to score less than an RPi4 on Geekbench.
Re: Our User-Mode WireGuard Year
#65Fly.io's blog posts are incredible, they really seem to really enjoy what they do and want to share what they've made with everyone else. I love them for that. I wish that more companies could be like this and skip the corporate BS, it shows that they really have something outstanding to offer.
I think their super power here is employing a renowned security expert who is an incredibly good communicator! (And happens to be a top HN contributor)
Re: Our User-Mode WireGuard Year
#66Fly.io's blog posts are incredible, they really seem to really enjoy what they do and want to share what they've made with everyone else. I love them for that. I wish that more companies could be like this and skip the corporate BS, it shows that they really have something outstanding to offer.
Re: Our User-Mode WireGuard Year
#67Fly.io's blog posts are incredible, they really seem to really enjoy what they do and want to share what they've made with everyone else. I love them for that. I wish that more companies could be like this and skip the corporate BS, it shows that they really have something outstanding to offer.
The nature of the blog typically cater towards the intended audience.
The CIO of Disney doesn't give a sh*t if the protocol is called WireGuard or OpenVPN or that if it uses AES-256 encryption - he/she wants someone to tell them that their developers are securely accessing their infrastructure. Full stop. If/when Fly gets to that level (let's say $500M in revenue) their blog tone will likely change - their audience is almost primarily developers and startup CTOs...for now.
Re: Our User-Mode WireGuard Year
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is https://tailscale.com/ not "usermode WireGuard"? I've been playing with it for a while now (it has a fairly generous free tier) and am quite impressed. I can access any of my LAN machines (my servers, my NAS, etc.) from anywhere that is also connected to the same network, and the names work for DNS as well.
It depends on what sort of tunneling you're doing. If you just want a general-purpose private VPN, Tailscale is amazing. That list is more focused on the use case where you want to host a public server on a machine that isn't accessible to the internet (NAT, corporate firewall, etc). Think a shared Jellyfin server for your friends and family. You can use Tailscale here but you'll need to separately run a reverse-prox…
Re: Our User-Mode WireGuard Year
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think their super power here is employing a renowned security expert who is an incredibly good communicator! (And happens to be a top HN contributor)
Nit: THE top HN contributor
Re: Our User-Mode WireGuard Year
#70Can someone explain to me why wireguard is implemented as a kernel module? Yes I get it, more performance. But isn't it completely and absolutely insane to run a complicated piece of software that is open to outside connections with kernel privileges?