Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New Internet

tailscale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 315 posts

Re: The New Internet

#61

Post by jmprspret »

figassis wrote: post #9

I love Tailscale, but this post gives me the creeps. The internet succeeded because it was built on standards and was completely free. With Tailscale, I get wireguard is open source and we have things like Headscale. But the whole everyone gets an IP, doesn’t it depend on Tailscale owning a massive ip address space? We can all wait until full ipv6 rollout, or we can depend on centralized ipv4, and servers and proprie…

You can self-host a Tailscale control sever with Headscale[1]. It's not quite at feature parity with Tailscale, but it supports most if not all the current feature set and its improving every day. One of the lead devs is even paid by Tailscale to work on it, IIRC.

I run it for my personal self-hosted infra, and it works really well. Setting a custom control server URL is relatively easy (at least on Windows and Android which I use).

I use taildrop, I serve docker containers to the tailnet, etc. headscale works really well and is worth a go.

1: https://github.com/juanfont/headscale

Re: The New Internet

#62

Post by jmprspret »

Aeolun wrote: post #33

I really liked the premise of the post until I got to the last paragraph and had to do a quick double take. Sure Tailscale makes the internet easier again, but I still have to rely on a landlord. Something I didn’t/don’t have to for the internet. As much as a lot of stuff has been centralized, even today I can connect to any server in the world with just the link.

> I still have to rely on a landlord.

This is a very good point. Counterpoint is self-hosting Headscale which I mentioned in another comment here: https://github.com/juanfont/headscale

Works with native Tailscale clients with a few config changes. I use it myself.

Re: The New Internet

#63

Post by metadat »

throw0101d wrote: post #43
metadat wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More info about Carrier-Grade NAT (for others who, like me, are only encountering this term for the time): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT Can anyone elighten me regarding what is different or special about 100.64.0.0/10 vs say, 192.168.0.0 or 10.0.0.0. Edit: Answered my own question by digging into more wikis, there is a helpful table of reservations and intentions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…

> Can anyone elighten me regarding what is different or special about 100.64.0.0/10 vs say, 192.168.0.0 or 10.0.0.0. A bit of context: if an ISP cannot get enough IPv4 addresses for the WAN-side of people's home routers, some problems exist: * something in 192.168/16 is generally used for the LAN-side of people's home routers, so that cannot be used on the WAN side * 10/8 is used for business/enterprise corporate net…

Interesting, I thought docker uses 172.*.

Re: The New Internet

#64

Post by cpach »

jmprspret wrote: post #61
figassis wrote: post #9

I love Tailscale, but this post gives me the creeps. The internet succeeded because it was built on standards and was completely free. With Tailscale, I get wireguard is open source and we have things like Headscale. But the whole everyone gets an IP, doesn’t it depend on Tailscale owning a massive ip address space? We can all wait until full ipv6 rollout, or we can depend on centralized ipv4, and servers and proprie…

You can self-host a Tailscale control sever with Headscale[1]. It's not quite at feature parity with Tailscale, but it supports most if not all the current feature set and its improving every day. One of the lead devs is even paid by Tailscale to work on it, IIRC. I run it for my personal self-hosted infra, and it works really well. Setting a custom control server URL is relatively easy (at least on Windows and Andro…

Cool! Any important features you miss when running Headscale?

Re: The New Internet

#65

Post by [deleted] »

metadat wrote: post #63
throw0101d wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can anyone elighten me regarding what is different or special about 100.64.0.0/10 vs say, 192.168.0.0 or 10.0.0.0. A bit of context: if an ISP cannot get enough IPv4 addresses for the WAN-side of people's home routers, some problems exist: * something in 192.168/16 is generally used for the LAN-side of people's home routers, so that cannot be used on the WAN side * 10/8 is used for business/enterprise corporate net…

Interesting, I thought docker uses 172.*.

[deleted]

Re: The New Internet

#66

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

jclulow wrote: post #15

An incredibly long ramp up to complaining about centralised control by rent seekers (a very reasonable complaint!) which gets bogged down in some ostensibly unrelated shade about whether client-server computing makes sense (it does) or is itself somehow responsible for the rent seeking (it isn't; you can seek rent on proprietary peer to peer systems as well!) to then arrive at: > There’s going to be a new world of ha…

"...you can rent seek on proprietary peer to peer systems as well..."

I still use a non-proprietary one that predates Tailscale and that is not OpenVPN. It is small and simple enough even I, a non-programmer, can make modifications.

It's possible one ends up using client-server in order to achieve peer-to-peer because not everyone has an internet-reachable, non-firewalled IP address. Using some hosting company's server to run a "supernode" may be required. No traffic needs to pass through it if it is used only as a "rendezvous server" so the cost can be minimal.

Companies that try to compete with "free" always draw high scrutiny from me. Stop using that free software and start paying us. We added 100 unnecessary "features".

Not doubting this "corporate strategy" can succeed, at least short-term. Look at Slack. But these subscriptions are not for me.

Client-server versus peer-to-peer is misdirection. The real issue is proprietary versus non-proprietary. IMHO.

Re: The New Internet

#67

Post by wmf »

Bluecobra wrote: post #42
wmf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apenwarr is kind of an IPv6 hater. He thinks it's not going to happen.

There are some very valid points here though: https://apenwarr.ca/log/20170810

Yeah, he's not wrong. I just found his take on IPv6 to be pretty pessimistic at that time. His manifesto from today is much more positive.

Re: The New Internet

#68

Post by howis »

How is having a TLS cert considered to currently be a “have”? Seems like a deployment issue for your colo and edge presence (for those eschewing AWS).

Re: The New Internet

#69

Post by jmprspret »

cpach wrote: post #64
jmprspret wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can self-host a Tailscale control sever with Headscale[1]. It's not quite at feature parity with Tailscale, but it supports most if not all the current feature set and its improving every day. One of the lead devs is even paid by Tailscale to work on it, IIRC. I run it for my personal self-hosted infra, and it works really well. Setting a custom control server URL is relatively easy (at least on Windows and Andro…

Cool! Any important features you miss when running Headscale?

Nothing that I've noticed. I actually have never run vanilla Tailscale without Headscale so I'm not sure.

I think auto TLS requires some extra config, and DNS rules. I don't use it so I'm not sure.

Re: The New Internet

#70

Post by ivlad »

IPv6 + transport mode IPsec + opportunistic encryption with TOFU or other topologies of trust (including WoT, DNSSEC and PKI). All that is standard, most of it is available and only requires configuration (and, ideally, being turned on by default).

There is very little use for companies like Tailscale in this setup, it’s scalable and works.

Post reply on HN