Tailscale Peer Relays is now generally available
201–210 of 267 posts
Re: Tailscale Peer Relays is now generally available
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenZiti (Apache 2.0): https://github.com/openziti/ziti
This is a secure mesh network, but it appears to be for embedding into applications, not a "private VPN" like Tailscale, or do I misunderstand?
The difference is architectural; Tailscale is a mesh VPN, whereas OpenZiti is an identity-first, zero trust overlay network. This makes OpenZiti service-centric and deny-by-default, not network-centric. Instead of “join a private network,” you get access only to explicitly authorised services — with no ambient reachability at all. Its also 100% open source. If you want a simple productised, SaaS experience, NetFoundry, the company behind OpenZiti provides that.
Re: Tailscale Peer Relays is now generally available
#203Re: Tailscale Peer Relays is now generally available
#204I wonder if someone might indulge me by answering a question or two about Tailscale. I have a self-managed wireguard network which works, but probably isn't very smart or elegant. From what I can gather, Tailscale does a lot of "magic" things to accomplish its goals, and some of them actually have "magic" right in the name. As a system administrator by trade, I have been bitten SO MANY TIMES by things that try to aut…
To try and take a general poke at the question in more of the context you leave at the end:
- We use rule based routing to try to dodge arbitrary order conflicts in the routing tables.
- We install our rules with high priority because traffic intended for the tailnet hitting non-tailscale interfaces is typically undesirable (it's often plain text).
- We integrate with systemd-resolved _by preference_ on Linux if it is present, so that if you're using cgroup/namepsace features (containers, sandbox runtimes, etc etc) then this provides the expected dns/interface pairings. If we can't find systemd-resolved we fall back to modifying /etc/resolv.conf, which is unavoidably an area of conflict on such systems (on macos and windows they have more broadly standard solutions we can use instead, modulo other platform details).
- We support integration with both iptables and nftables (the latter is behind manual configuration currently due to slightly less broad standardization, but is defaulted by heuristic on some distros/in some environments (like gokrazy, some containers)). In nftables we create our own tables, and just install jumps into the xtables conventional locations so as to be compatible with ufw, firewalld and so on.
- We do our best in tailscaled's sshd to implement login in a broadly compatible way, but again this is another of those places the linux ecosystem lacks standards and there's a ton of distro variation right now (freedesktops concerns start at a higher level so they haven't driven standardization, everyone else like openssh have their own pile of best-guesses, and distros go ham with patches).
- We need a 1360 byte MTU path to peers for full support/stability. Our inner/interface MTU is 1280, the minimum MTU for IPv6, once packed in WireGuard and outer IPv6, that's 1360.
I can't answer directly based on "very custom" if there will be any challenges to deal with. We do offer support to work through these things though, and have helped some users with fairly exotic setups.
Re: Tailscale Peer Relays is now generally available
#205[dead]
I am not anti advertising, I just think pushing AI into places were people interact is very bad behavior and should be punished.
Re: Tailscale Peer Relays is now generally available
#206How does Tailscale make money? I really like their service but I'm worried about a rug pull in the future. Has anyone tried alternative FOSS solutions? Also, sometimes it seems like I get rate limited on Tailscale. Has anyone had that experience? This usually happens with multiple SSH connections at the same time.
Re: Tailscale Peer Relays is now generally available
#207[dead]
Edit: My understanding of network terminologies is weak. But I assumed that the relay server would have to not be behind a CGNAT.
Re: Tailscale Peer Relays is now generally available
#208[dead]
Re: Tailscale Peer Relays is now generally available
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t there separation of the control and data planes? I don’t think Tailscale get to see any of your network traffic.
They need to know how/where to route your outbound traffic. That inherently includes plaintext DNS, TLS handshakes, and otherwise plaintext traffic (like HTTP for example). Anybody wanting to see what Tailscale is able to see can simply sniff any router interface passing outbound traffic before it enters the WireGuard tunnel interface.
Re: Tailscale Peer Relays is now generally available
#210If you're sold on Tailscale due to them "being open" (as they semi-officially support the development of Headscale), keep in mind, that at the same time some of their clients are closed source and proprietary, and thus totally controlled by them and the official distribution channels, like Apple. Some of the arguments given for this stance are just ridiculous: > If users are comfortable running non-open operating sys…
Went with ZeroTier and Netbird, they're not too bad.