Live data from Hacker News

WireGuard: Beyond the most basic configuration

sloonz.github.io

11–20 of 115 posts

Re: WireGuard: Beyond the most basic configuration

#13
post #3
post #2

Setting up a dynamic DNS record to map a hostname to my home network’s dynamic IP actually makes private VPN usable. It’s really a game changer to be able to access all the local services and resources on the road without exposing them to the public internet.

Are you using an internal or external service? Curious what you or others recommend... I've done a bit of both... I used CloudFlare which works fine and then I moved over to tailscale when playing with pxe / netboot and I've not decided on what to use beyond tailscale's magic dns. Unbound looks pretty nice.

Unbound is perfect. The CLI is very handy as it allows you invalidate specific domains from the local cache. I have had a good experience with dnsmasq and dnscrypt2 as well.

Re: WireGuard: Beyond the most basic configuration

#14
post #3
post #2

Setting up a dynamic DNS record to map a hostname to my home network’s dynamic IP actually makes private VPN usable. It’s really a game changer to be able to access all the local services and resources on the road without exposing them to the public internet.

Are you using an internal or external service? Curious what you or others recommend... I've done a bit of both... I used CloudFlare which works fine and then I moved over to tailscale when playing with pxe / netboot and I've not decided on what to use beyond tailscale's magic dns. Unbound looks pretty nice.

I’m using an internal machine for the VPN server and port forwarded to it from the router. I also have Tailscale set up but if I remember correctly Tailscale requires all devices participating in its VPN to install its software, which is too much.

Re: WireGuard: Beyond the most basic configuration

#15
I'm using wireguard with ipv6, the only thing that I never got to work is for wireguard to do ipv6 prefix delegation allowing devices to pick (and change) their own address like they do on a normal ethernet subnet.

I like the randomisation that normally happens to make it invisible which phone/device in the subnet made each request.

Re: WireGuard: Beyond the most basic configuration

#16
post #15

I'm using wireguard with ipv6, the only thing that I never got to work is for wireguard to do ipv6 prefix delegation allowing devices to pick (and change) their own address like they do on a normal ethernet subnet. I like the randomisation that normally happens to make it invisible which phone/device in the subnet made each request.

I don’t know if the spec supports that on its own. Although, it’s a good feature request.

You’d have to update the WG configuration each time a new IPv6 address connected. So, you would probably need to connect through something like a client that could push a config update and restart the service.

Not impossible, but that’s another layer of complexity to maintain.

Re: WireGuard: Beyond the most basic configuration

#17

why is this not basic for me? yes I am tech guy!

Probably because networking itself is arcane. If you're used to everything around it, wireguard itself is really simple. If you're not, all the rest of it is going to drag you down.

Re: WireGuard: Beyond the most basic configuration

#18
post #14
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you using an internal or external service? Curious what you or others recommend... I've done a bit of both... I used CloudFlare which works fine and then I moved over to tailscale when playing with pxe / netboot and I've not decided on what to use beyond tailscale's magic dns. Unbound looks pretty nice.

I’m using an internal machine for the VPN server and port forwarded to it from the router. I also have Tailscale set up but if I remember correctly Tailscale requires all devices participating in its VPN to install its software, which is too much.

Is that true? I’m not 100% sure, but I think I’ve printed while I was away from home and I only have Tailscale software installed on my AppleTV.

Re: WireGuard: Beyond the most basic configuration

#19
post #4
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you using an internal or external service? Curious what you or others recommend... I've done a bit of both... I used CloudFlare which works fine and then I moved over to tailscale when playing with pxe / netboot and I've not decided on what to use beyond tailscale's magic dns. Unbound looks pretty nice.

A pretty common setup is to have a public VPS/dedicated server with wireguard/openvpn hosted at some trusted company and use that as an entry/exit point. It's basically what Tailscale is (massively simplified, obviously).

As far as I understand it, that's not how Tailscale works most of the time. The actual connection is established between the VPN nodes, and actual traffic doesn't travel through Tailscale's servers.

The VPS solution is usually the hub of a star-shaped network, so everything has to go through it, which may be limiting, given that, at least where I live, gigabit fiber is fairly widespread and reasonably priced. Most VPSs I see have less bandwidth than that.

There's headscale which allows setting up tailscale with a private server: https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/

Re: WireGuard: Beyond the most basic configuration

#20
post #9

I had hoped that this included a way to configure wireguard to get clients from some other place: It would be really nifty if you could configure it to read from LDAP or similar.

Tailscale (also using wireguard for transport) and similar overlay networks kind of do that.

With Tailscale there is a central server, you can sign in with single-sign-on, that server enables automatic mesh configuration and helps nodes communicate specifics for port knocking, routing, dns, etc. And there are derp servers (think of them like TURN servers) that can be used as proxies when direct communication can't be established.

Altogether this is easier to set up than Wireguard, but the central server is not open source (but there is Headscale, and open source implementation), and it is not as well supported on routers (it is supported on OpenWRT though and probably can be set up using containers on Mikrotik).

Post reply on HN