mrh

joined 2 years ago
[–] mrh@mander.xyz 5 points 1 week ago
[–] mrh@mander.xyz 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Hundreds of Beavers

[–] mrh@mander.xyz 4 points 1 month ago

Use Guix/Nix, have your cake and eat it

[–] mrh@mander.xyz 4 points 1 month ago

oh yes, guix+hurd is only x86

[–] mrh@mander.xyz 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It would be nice having native programs. At least you can use any native xmpp app with the same account to do text, audio, and visual comms (including groups). The only thing they don't support is the actual social feeds/posts aspect (and soon spaces!).

49
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by mrh@mander.xyz to c/linux@lemmy.world
[–] mrh@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I love ipv6 but I don't see how it is related to anything here

[–] mrh@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yes your description is just right and is the heart of my question. To use your terminology:

Currently:

  • Away from home: Phone -> VM -> Home Server
  • At home: Phone -> VM -> Home Server (inefficient!)

Ideally:

  • Away from home: Phone -> VM -> Home Server
  • At home: Phone -> Home Server

In the ideal case, I would never have to change anything about the wireguard config/status on the Phone, nor would I have to change the domain name used to reach the resource on the Home Server.

[–] mrh@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Oh hm I didn't think about your last point, maybe it's not really an issue at all. I think I'm not 100% on how the wireguard networking works.

Suppose I tunnel all of my traffic through wireguard on the remote server. Say that while I am home, I request foo.local, which on the remote server DNS maps to a wireguard address corresponding to my home machine. The remote will return to me the wireguard address corresponding to the home machine, and then I will try and go to that wireguard address. Will the home router recognize that that wireguard address is local and not send it out to the remote server?

[–] mrh@mander.xyz 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes that would work, but it feels a bit cumbersome to have 2 fqdns per service, which I would have to switch between using depending on on whether I'm local or not.

[–] mrh@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Right but I want to be connected to wireguard always, I just want the DNS/routing to be different based on home vs foreign network.

[–] mrh@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And so when away do you just directly connect to the external IP and do port forwarding?

61
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by mrh@mander.xyz to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
 

So I have some services and wireguard running locally on a "home" network. I also have wireguard, a DNS resolver, and a reverse proxy set up on a remote server. Since I don't want to expose the home IP to the public, to access my services I connect to the VPN on the remote, which then forwards my request home. But this means that when I'm at home, connecting to my local services requires going out to the remote. Is there some way to have the traffic go over the switch when at home, but go over wireguard when away, without having to manually switch the VPN on/off?

I could move the DNS resolver (which handles the internal names for the services) from the remote to the home server. But then similarly every DNS request will need to go through both the remote and home servers, doubling the hops. I'd like to use my own DNS server at all times though, both at and away from home. Which tradeoff seems better?

edit: thanks for all the suggestions, I'll look into some of these solutions and see what works best

view more: next ›