Selfhosted

39939 readers

497 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

Access local cockpit instance without port forwarding (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by legoraft@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hi, I've recently built myself my first server to host a minecraft server. I manage this server through cockpit, which isn't port forwarded.

Now I'm going to move to a different place, but I want to keep that server at this house because of more stable internet and me moving to a smaller space, but I don't know how I could access this server remotely.

I've already tried adding a vpn to my router, but when connected, I still can't access my cockpit dashboard. Am I doing anything wrong or do I need to port forward to access my cockpit instance remotely?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] drkt@feddit.dk 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It should be set to your local subnet, for example 192.168.1.0/24

see https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/638889/make-local-resources-available-when-connected-to-wireguard-vpn

[–] momsi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This would tell the peer with this configuration to send all traffic for the whole 192.168.1.0/24 through the tunnel, not sure that is what OP wants. (Didn't look at the link though)

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

While not what OP wants, this is what I want, but it isn't working for me. I am trying expose a subnet behind nat, to a public server. I am currently testing this by attempting to expose the vlan created by libvirt on my laptop to my public vps. I followed the linked point to site guide, and ironically, the virtual machines created on my laptop can access the wireguard subnet, but public vps cannot access the virtual machines? (the guide said that it would be the opposite without the iptables nat/masquerade rules) I am guessing because I am doing this somewhat backwards, where the device exposing the lan is behind nat, whereas it is the other way around in the guides that I have seen.