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

Tailcat – Like netcat, but over Tailscale’s data plane

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: Tailcat – Like netcat, but over Tailscale’s data plane

#111

Post by tomxor »

spockz wrote: post #61

How much Tailscale is this still if the transport is based on wireguard, the control plane is something new with the keys based on the wireguard keys? Genuinely confused.

I think this is best described as a one-shot control plane, the single use address/key (same thing) is shared out of band, so it's far more minimal than the TS control plane.

The examples show the concrete use cases... Basically giving you the wiregaurd + DERP quality tunnel but as a one shot point to point cli tool. Which is a nice upgrade from the alternative "in a pinch" tools.

RE "how much tailscale" I guess it's the DERP bit + this minimal point to point control plane. Without which it's significantly more configuration to get the wiregaurd tunnel working, or impossible because of NAT, unless both machines are on the same ipv6 network.

TS basically sell the full control plane with Auth and ACL style management etc as their product so this doesn't really compete.

Re: Tailcat – Like netcat, but over Tailscale’s data plane

#112

Post by gchamonlive »

JavierFlores09 wrote: post #109
freakynit wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://pumpkinmc.org/

none of the rust-based minecraft server have enough functionality implemented to use them for survival, maybe for some minigames but that's about it. Pumpkin has gotten far out of the many[1] but there's still lots to be done. 1: https://dayssincelastrustmcserver.com/

These game servers are really the perfect use case for agents. Would anyone really care that much about code quality if the server works fast and reliably?

Re: Tailcat – Like netcat, but over Tailscale’s data plane

#113

Post by mikepurvis »

aerzen wrote: post #31
mikepurvis wrote: post #28

I enjoy that they supply a nix install/environment, similar to the main tailscale/tailscale repo. Is nix widespread or the standard dev environment at tailscale, or is it like a 10% option and most people just use Docker or whatever?

I'd guess that there is an insignificant minority of people who strongly prefer nix over anything else. And it might be because it is easy to provide and maintain compared to a .deb package.

Maintaining and providing a deb is pretty easy too; the real killer for a nix flake I think it's how dirt simple it is to provide infinite testing builds for different branches.

Re: Tailcat – Like netcat, but over Tailscale’s data plane

#114

Post by [deleted] »

stillpointlab wrote: post #88

I've spent time finally learning what tailscale is and how it works and I'm impressed. It's a rare thing in the technology world but I'm glad I finally took the time. I literally just figured out how tsnet fits into the picture (an in-process Go based entire network stack that gets the process to act as a node in the tailnet) and so that helps me understand this (everything in tsnet excepting the control plane). It's…

[deleted]

Re: Tailcat – Like netcat, but over Tailscale’s data plane

#115

Post by jcgl »

derkades wrote: post #63
fodkodrasz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPSec may be a pain... but WireGuard is as simple as it gets in my opinion. Yeah, you may need to know basic IP concepts, like MTU... NAT traversal is a different topic, WG won't help in that, and that can actually be a pain. I guess we should be using IPv6 already, and this tool would be largely redundant already. (not completely, encrypted access to isolated networks is a valid use case)

Even without NAT, the same hole punching techniques must be used for IPv6 since there is usually a firewall blocking inbound traffic. Only in CGNAT type scenarios where the network behind NAT is still "WAN" will be helped by IPv6.

This point applied to normal NAT as well as CGNAT specifically.

And hole punching gets a lot simpler when you’re behind NAT since you don’t need any kind of rendezvous server to determine port mappings.

In other words, IPv6 does help substantially—the same hole punching techniques are not needed.

Re: Tailcat – Like netcat, but over Tailscale’s data plane

#117

Post by [deleted] »

nullsanity wrote: post #67
awakeasleep wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be amazing to have something like this for bedrock so people with consoles without online subscriptions could join a self hosted bedrock mc server

They can! They just need a real computer, the real Minecraft game (Java), and then they can! it's so easy when you don't play the shitty mobile clone.

[deleted]

Re: Tailcat – Like netcat, but over Tailscale’s data plane

#118

Post by frollogaston »

tucnak wrote: post #73
nullsanity wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can! They just need a real computer, the real Minecraft game (Java), and then they can! it's so easy when you don't play the shitty mobile clone.

Why is this downvoted? Bedrock is literally dog shit clone for iPad kids. This is not even controversial, it's just fact.

Idk where it says this. Never played Bedrock though cause that doesn't work on Mac.

Re: Tailcat – Like netcat, but over Tailscale’s data plane

#120

Post by [deleted] »

idiotsecant wrote: post #94
tucnak wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this downvoted? Bedrock is literally dog shit clone for iPad kids. This is not even controversial, it's just fact.

Yaaaa get those 9 year olds good stupid plebs can't even buy their own computer, you really gottem

[deleted]
Post reply on HN