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

231–240 of 315 posts

Re: The New Internet

#231

Post by wmf »

cookiengineer wrote: post #228
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…

Honestly, I kind of missed Hamachi in the last decades. It was such a superb and easy to use tool to design/configure your own private networks at the time. Filesharing, local game LANs, development cooperation, heck, even media streaming was so easily done at the time. Personally I think that the future of peer to peer isn't tailscale, it's more someting along the lines of a selfhosted hamachi variant that's able to…

That sounds a lot like Headscale.

Re: The New Internet

#232

Post by wmf »

ivlad wrote: post #70

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.

Gets killed by IPv6 firewalls.

Re: The New Internet

#233

Post by rsync »

TheFlyingFish wrote: post #215
rsync wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully referring to the (excellent) sshuttle: https://github.com/sshuttle/sshuttle ... which allows you to turn any system you have an ssh login on into a VPN endpoint.

Wasn't sshuttle created by the now CEO of Tailscale?

Yes, I think so - original project is at:

https://github.com/apenwarr/sshuttle

... and I had not made that connection before ...

Re: The New Internet

#234

Post by dilawar »

api wrote: post #161
throw0101d wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who was stopping anyone from doing it then, and who is stopping anyone from doing it now? The folks who either (a) got in early on the IPv4 address land rush (especially the Western developed countries), or (b) with buckets of money who buy addresses. If you're India, there probably weren't enough IPv4 address in the first place to handle your population, so you're doing IPv6: * https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/…

There is another reason: the addresses are long and impossible to remember and hard to type. I always bring this up and it’s always dismissed because tech people continue to dismiss usability concerns. Even “small” usability differences can have a huge effect on adoption.

Thanks for pointing this out. It's hard to communicate ipv4 and I dread even reading ipv6.

I don't understand why they didn't just add two or four more fields to ipv4 e.g. 0.91.127.0.0.1 is localhost where 0.91 can be omitted in the local context.

PS: I don't understand how networking works. Feels very very complex and full of jargons.

Re: The New Internet

#235

Post by noduerme »

eqvinox wrote: post #230
aboardRat4 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But most of 2024's network security problems originate from the devices behind your firewall getting exploited through their on requests, not some random shit connecting from the outside. That is Survivor Bias at its best. The originate _inside_ because NAT effectively blocks all _external_ requests.

> The originate _inside_ because NAT effectively blocks all _external_ requests. You mean the firewall effectively blocks all external requests.

Regardless, it's a fair point. Most of the attack surface on client / end user boxes these days is through social engineering and end user stupidity. Vanishingly little of it on modern OSes comes from external sources like a scan revealing a mistakenly open port. It's just that the threat profile has shifted toward making users make mistakes to the point where so much resource is thrown at fooling users now that, by the numbers and the ransomware profits, it's more effective than trying to penetrate software remotely.

Re: The New Internet

#236

Post by mike_d »

benreesman wrote: post #183
teddyh wrote: post #57

The eternal problem with companies like Tailscale (and Cloudflare, Google, etc. etc.) is that, by solving a problem with the modern internet which the internet should have been designed to solve by itself, like simple end-to-end secure connectivity, Tailscale becomes incentivized to keep the problem . What the internet would need is something like IPv6 with automatic encryption via IPsec, with PKI provided by DNSSEC.…

So far as I’m aware, TailScale has been at all times a good actor. I have no problem criticizing tech companies, but I try to wait until they behave badly.

> TailScale has been at all times a good actor.

This is the Cloudflare problem all over again. One day Matthew Prince will get hit by a bus, all the "trustworthy people" will leave, a PE firm will take the company private, and merge it with an ad network. Congrats, the entire internet now has a single companies ads all over it and we let it happen because we happened to like the people fucking us.

Re: The New Internet

#237

Post by kiitos »

OneOffAsk wrote: post #25

> In fact, we didn’t found Tailscale to be a networking company. Networking didn’t come into it much at all at first. I always just assumed they were building some kind of logging software (“tail”scale), used Wireguard to connect hosts, and just kind of stopped there. Don’t get me wrong, Tailscale is a nice way to connect machines. It’s nice because Wireguard is nice.

Wireguard by itself is good, but it isn't nice. Tailscale is nice because it builds on top of Wireguard (which is good) and adds UX stuff (which makes it nice).

Nice requires humane UX.

Re: The New Internet

#238

Post by kiitos »

throw782349872 wrote: post #78

I've been an active Tailscale user for years now, preaching the Gospel of Wireguard Control Planes to all who will listen (and many who won't) in both my personal and professional life. It's been really disheartening to watch the steady enshittification of Tailscale, Inc. I knew it was coming with 100% certainty once they raised 100mil in 2022. It's still heartbreaking because the product itself is quite good. The wo…

not sure what you mean by "enshittification"

are you describing the process of a company achieving commercial success?

Re: The New Internet

#239

Post by fragmede »

dilawar wrote: post #234
api wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is another reason: the addresses are long and impossible to remember and hard to type. I always bring this up and it’s always dismissed because tech people continue to dismiss usability concerns. Even “small” usability differences can have a huge effect on adoption.

Thanks for pointing this out. It's hard to communicate ipv4 and I dread even reading ipv6. I don't understand why they didn't just add two or four more fields to ipv4 e.g. 0.91.127.0.0.1 is localhost where 0.91 can be omitted in the local context. PS: I don't understand how networking works. Feels very very complex and full of jargons.

if ipv4 is called that because there are 4 numbers in the IP address, what would you call your scheme with 6 of them?

Re: The New Internet

#240

Post by wolfendin »

dilawar wrote: post #234
api wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is another reason: the addresses are long and impossible to remember and hard to type. I always bring this up and it’s always dismissed because tech people continue to dismiss usability concerns. Even “small” usability differences can have a huge effect on adoption.

Thanks for pointing this out. It's hard to communicate ipv4 and I dread even reading ipv6. I don't understand why they didn't just add two or four more fields to ipv4 e.g. 0.91.127.0.0.1 is localhost where 0.91 can be omitted in the local context. PS: I don't understand how networking works. Feels very very complex and full of jargons.

Because the fields are there for humans, in the packet itself it’s a 32bit integer, and you can’t just arbitrarily make the src/dest fields in the packet bigger— it stops being IPv4 then.
Post reply on HN