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:
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
There’s not a lot of information to go on here, but my first thought is that you haven’t configured your VPN to route to the local network. So, while you may be getting a connection to the VPN server, your computer doesn’t know where to send traffic for Cockpit.
There is usually a way to push those routes to the client from your con server.
Hi! I've done a bit more thorough googling, because of you I knew what to look for a bit better. I have a wireguard vpn on my fritz box router enabled, which allows me to connect to the vpn from my laptop.
I've read up on how to acces local devices and I found something about adding an IP to the "AllowedIPs" section, but I don't really get which IP I should add.
It should be set to your local subnet, for example 192.168.1.0/24
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.
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)
The folks replying here have pretty much hit the nail on the head. Adding your home network to that AllowedIPs line in the confit file should do the trick.
Someone else mentioned Tailscale, which would be another great option—with a web UI to dial in routes.
Probably it would be much easier for you to setup tailscale. Just install it on the system you host the other services, install on the other end and use the tailscale ip. It should require minimal effort to set up with the added benefit of not having ports open, and way easier maintaining.
As for wireguard, the allowed up section tells what ips should be routed through the tunnel, it's not that difficult, but hard to wrap your head around at first. A friend of mine also used to use the Fritzbox Implementation of wireguard and I remember you need to specifically setup what clients you want the tunnel to have access to.
Have a look at tailscale.
Thank you for the info! I'll take a look at tailscale and try to wrap my head around the wireguard thing. Thanks for the help!
this.
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 |
| SSD | Solid State Drive mass storage |
| VPN | Virtual Private Network |
3 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 6 acronyms.
[Thread #49 for this sub, first seen 16th Aug 2023, 05:25] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]