←back to thread

149 points juhovh | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source

My elderly parents are behind a 5G connection in rural areas, and I help them manage their network from overseas. I found a reasonably priced 5G router that can do external antennas required for it to work, but the only reasonable ways to get access to it is either through OpenVPN or WireGuard, the latter of which is much more lightweight and preferred with the memory constraints of the device.

The problem with WireGuard is that it requires handling key management oneself, and configuring the keys to every device you want to access it from. It also doesn't play nicely together with other VPNs, meaning I ended up connecting and disconnecting VPNs whenever I wanted to use them. This is especially evident on my phone, which only allows one VPN app at a time.

I was already using Tailscale as an easy way to handle homelab access with SSO, even if some computers are behind ISP CGNAT, and came up with this idea of spinning up a Docker container to connect the two. I found some suggestions for it online, but nothing ready to use. It ended up being more work than I expected to fine tune the routing, IPv6, firewall settings, re-resolving the DNS of the router on IP address changes etc.

I got it very stable eventually though, and wanted to share with everyone else. I think it's cool to have the WireGuard router looking like any other Tailscale node in my tailnet now.

Show context
notadeveloper ◴[] No.45199253[source]
What about the Subnet Router functionality that Tailscale has?
replies(2): >>45199317 #>>45199723 #
salviati ◴[] No.45199317[source]
I had a very similar problem to the one OP was facing, and I solved it by connecting my fenced router (a router with no fixed public IP) via Wireguard to one machine in my tailscale network, and set up subnet routers so I can access it from any machine in my tailscale.

It works great.

I might misunderstand, but to me it looks like the solution in this post might be better than my setup because if that single node is down I won't be able to reach the fenced router.

replies(1): >>45199910 #
1. juhovh ◴[] No.45199910[source]
Cool, this sounds like a very similar setup actually!

Even in this case, you still need to have a node somewhere to run the container and store the WireGuard keys, to be able to link the tailnet and the WireGuard endpoint. So that single point of failure still unfortunately remains.

The benefit of having it all configured in a single container means it's pretty easy to spin up anywhere (where the fenced router is accessible), all you need is the tunnel config file.

I also wanted to make sure it works for both IPv4 and IPv6 connections, because many ISPs in my area are starting to only give public IPv6 addresses. That way as long as the WireGuard router has IPv6 and the node running the container has IPv4/IPv6 dual stack, one can still access the Wireguard from an IPv4 only device.