Try v1.60.1
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
18 points (100.0% liked)
Selfhosted
46677 readers
486 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Of what?
image: tailscale/tailscale:v1.60.1
To pull that version of tailscale. Latest broke subnets.
Doesn't seem to work.
You might have other issues then, but I'd use that version of tailscale since it was the last version to work with subnets. Also, only the owner's account works cuz sharing subnets broke even longer ago, and I'm positive neither has been fixed. Good luck!
Subnets seem to work for me with 1.62.0 docker image. In what way were they broken?
I reported it the day the update was released cuz all of my containers are on their own ip. Got that update and nothing was reachable till I rolled back.
I ran into a similar problem with tailscale. It looked like I needed to disable source NAT but that didn’t appear to be implemented in the FreeBSD package so it didn’t work for me. If you’re in Linux it might be worth a shot.
--snat-subnet-routes=false
“Disables source NAT. In normal operations, a subnet device will see the traffic originating from the subnet router. This simplifies routing, but does not allow traversing multiple networks. By disabling source NAT, the end machine sees the LAN IP address of the originating machine as the source.”
Did you enable the route in the admin web ui?
I'm using Headscale, but yes.
That should be all that's required. Are you using ACLs? If so you need to provide access to the subnet router as well as a rule to the IP behind it
No, I'm not using ACLs.
Can your nodes ping each other on the tailscale ips? Check tailscale status and make sure the nodes see each other listed there.
Try tailscale ping 1.2.3.4 with the internal IP addresses and see what message it gives you.
tailscale debug netmap is useful to make sure your clients are seeing the routes that headscale pushes.
Yes, both clients can tailscale ping each other and after doing so the status shows active; relay "ams".
Using tailcale ping 192.168.178.178 also works for some reason.
Not sure what to do with the output of netmap.
Relay "ams" means you're using tailscales DERP node in amsterdam, this is expected if you don't have direct connectivity through your firewall. Since you opened the ports that's unusual and worth looking into, but I'd worry about that after you get basic connectivity.
So to confirm your behavior, you can tailscale ping each other fine and tailscale ping to the internal network. You cannot however ping from the OS to the remote internal network?
Have you checked your routing tables to make sure the tailscale client added the route properly?
Also have you checked your firewall rules? If you're using ipfw or something, try just turning off iptables briefly and see if that lets you ping through.
So to confirm your behavior, you can tailscale ping each other fine and tailscale ping to the internal network. You cannot however ping from the OS to the remote internal network?
Exactly.
Have you checked your routing tables to make sure the tailscale client added the route properly?
How do I do this? I use Headscale and headscale routes list shows the following:
ID | Machine | Prefix | Advertised | Enabled | Primary
1 | server | 0.0.0.0/0 | false | false | -
2 | server | ::/0 | false | false | -
3 | server | 192.168.178.0/24 | true | true | true
Also have you checked your firewall rules? If you’re using ipfw or something, try just turning off iptables briefly and see if that lets you ping through.
I'm not using a firewall, but the VPS is hosted on Hetzner, which has a firewall. But I already allowed UDP port 41641 and 41641. The wg0 rule is from the Wireguard setup I want to replace using Tailscale.
# iptables --list-rules
-P INPUT ACCEPT
-P FORWARD ACCEPT
-P OUTPUT ACCEPT
-N DOCKER
-N DOCKER-ISOLATION-STAGE-1
-N DOCKER-ISOLATION-STAGE-2
-N DOCKER-USER
-A INPUT -s 100.64.0.0/10 -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -j DOCKER-USER
-A FORWARD -j DOCKER-ISOLATION-STAGE-1
-A FORWARD -o docker0 -m conntrack --ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -o docker0 -j DOCKER
-A FORWARD -i docker0 ! -o docker0 -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -i docker0 -o docker0 -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -i wg0 -j ACCEPT
-A DOCKER -d 172.17.0.3/32 ! -i docker0 -o docker0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT
-A DOCKER -d 172.17.0.3/32 ! -i docker0 -o docker0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 81 -j ACCEPT
-A DOCKER -d 172.17.0.3/32 ! -i docker0 -o docker0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT
-A DOCKER -d 172.17.0.5/32 ! -i docker0 -o docker0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 9090 -j ACCEPT
-A DOCKER -d 172.17.0.5/32 ! -i docker0 -o docker0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 8080 -j ACCEPT
-A DOCKER -d 172.17.0.6/32 ! -i docker0 -o docker0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT
-A DOCKER -d 172.17.0.2/32 ! -i docker0 -o docker0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 9001 -j ACCEPT
-A DOCKER-ISOLATION-STAGE-1 -i docker0 ! -o docker0 -j DOCKER-ISOLATION-STAGE-2
-A DOCKER-ISOLATION-STAGE-1 -j RETURN
-A DOCKER-ISOLATION-STAGE-2 -o docker0 -j DROP
-A DOCKER-ISOLATION-STAGE-2 -j RETURN
-A DOCKER-USER -j RETURN
How do I do this?
Run ip route show table all
I would expect to see a line like:
192.168.178.0/24 dev tailscale0 table 52
Out of curiosity on a remote node do tcpdump -i tailscale0 -n icmp and then do a ping from the other side, does tcpdump see the icmp packets come in?
There is no tailscale0, but also not on my home server which also runs Tailscale and which I can access remotely using my Android.
Could my existing Wireguard setup interfere with Tailscale?
The tailscale client should have created an interface, but I've never used it on a box also running wg. You don't have a tailscale specific interface in ip addr show at all? That's.... odd.
Do you have a device at /dev/net/tun?
I'm not sure the Docker container is even using a tailscale interface, because there is none on my VPS or my home server.
And how do I see whether I have a device at /dev/net/tun?
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| IP | Internet Protocol |
| NAT | Network Address Translation |
| UDP | User Datagram Protocol, for real-time communications |
| VPN | Virtual Private Network |
| VPS | Virtual Private Server (opposed to shared hosting) |
5 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 11 acronyms.
[Thread #703 for this sub, first seen 22nd Apr 2024, 16:55] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
Sometimes these issues happen because of the IP range you're using. If your local network and your remote network both use the 192.168.x.x range, then there can be conflicts and issues like this. This is a thing that happens generally with VPNs, not sure how Tailscale specifically functions with this issue.
Even if that's not what's going on here, you might try setting up your remote node as an exit node, and configuring your local node to route all traffic through it. Theoretically that shouldn't be necessary, and it will also slow down your traffic if you're routing EVERYTHING through Tailscale. But it could work in a pinch.
Actually, I'm looking at Tailscale documentation now and I see that they recommend setting up subnet routers instead of exit nodes in most cases. Maybe go that route instead, that makes more sense to me. That way you're only routing necessary traffic through the remote node, rather than everything.
Thanks, that's what I'm trying to do. :)
And my VPS doesn't have any IPs in the same range as my home server.
New Lemmy Post: [Tailscale] Can't connect VPS to local network? (https://lemmyverse.link/lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/18911194)
Tagging: #SelfHosted
(Replying in the OP of this thread (NOT THIS BOT!) will appear as a comment in the lemmy discussion.)
I am a FOSS bot. Check my README: https://github.com/db0/lemmy-tagginator/blob/main/README.md