Wuh oh

3 times.

You always do it 3 times.

Just change the port Headscale is running on.

You also don’t want a reverse proxy out in front of Headscale. It doesn’t serve a purpose, and does nothing but introduce added complexity and performance degradation.

Just make an A record in your DNS that points to ‘vpn.whatever.com’ if you just want to treat it as a named host.

They have Open Source versions of their stack. Just run it yourself at no cost.

Am I missing something?

Also, use any other similar service which all have open source counterparts: Head scale/Tailscale, or ZeroTier.

deleted by creator

Unless they specify Solar, Wind, or Hydrogen, it’s just going to be these assholes building their own coal generators FFS.

Big NOPE

GEEEEEE, what a coincidence, eh? Almost like these companies may be coordinating some sort of market shift for some reason.

What do you call that when a bunch of companies responsible for large swathes of market share of a particular good or service use the guise of unnatural market pressure to create conditions unnaturally beneficial to themselves and not consumers?

First: there is no cheap way to back this amount of data up. AWS Glacier would be about $200/mo, PLUS bandwidth transfer charges, which would be something like $500. R2 would be about $750/mo, no transfer charges. So assume that most companies with some sort of whacky, competing product would be billed by either of these companies with you as a consumer, and you can figure out how this is the baseline of what you’ll be getting charged from them.

50TB of what? If it’s just readily available stuff you can download again, skip backing that up. Only keep personal effects, and see how much you can reduce this number by.

25% of what?

1/4 of 100% of what?

I’ve seen zero RISC devices in the wild, and the phrasing here wants me to think I should have by now.

It’s a dumbass AI-powered recommendation engine with an awful GUI. That’s about it.

As far as it being malicious, that’s really up to you.

They do no such thing.

The first link explains the protocol.

The second explains WHY one would refer to client and server with regards to Wireguard.

My point ties both together to explain why people would use client and server with regards to the protocol itself, and a common configuration where this would be necessary for clarification. Ties both of them together, and makes my point from my original comment, which also refers to OP’s comment.

I’m not digging you, just illustrating a correction so you’re not running around misinformed.

It wasn’t clear where OP was trying to make a point, just that the same host would be running running Wireguard for some reason, which one would assume means virtualization of some sort, meaning the host machine is the primary hub/server.

Uhhh, nooooo. Why are all these new kids all in these threads saying this crazy uninformed stuff lately? 🤣

https://www.wireguard.com/protocol/ https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/10/html/configuring_and_managing_networking/setting-up-a-wireguard-vpn

And, in fact, for those of us that have been doing this a long time, anything with a control point or protocol always refers to said control point as the server in a PTP connection sense.

In this case, a centralized VPN routing node that connects like a Hub and Spoke is the server. Everything else is a client of that server because they can’t independently do much else in this configuration.

Uhhhh…that is…not how you do that. Especially if you’re describing routing out from a container to an edge device and back into your host machine instead of using bridged network or another virtual router on the host.

Like if you absolutely had to have a segmented network between hosts a la datacenter/cloud, you’d still create a virtual fabric or SDLAN/WAN to connect them, and that’s like going WAY out of your way.

Wireguard for this purpose makes even less sense.

Why would you run a WG Client and WG Server on the same host? Am I reading that second mark wrong?