tailscale has a much better chance to work when you need it most. WireGuard is blocked by too much stuff.

Tailscale uses wireguard.

What it provides is a opinionated configuration management - which is admittedly great which is why I use it as well, but it's nonsensical to say tailscale works in places where wireguard is blocked.

You're likely just noticing the preconfigured nat traversal which tailscale provides and never set one up yourself, as you'd need a static IP for that and it's unconfigured by default.

▲

BrandoElFollito 4 days ago | parent [-]

> it's nonsensical to say tailscale works in places where wireguard is blocked

I have two machines on my desk, I configure a wg service on both. I also configure tailscale on both. Everything works.

I move one machine to another network, at a friend's place.

Wg does not work anymore. Tailscale works. So this is very much sensible to say what GP said.

Now, you can have all kinds of explanations about why wg dos not work and ts does, you know STUN, DERP, ts using wg under the hood, and whatnot but the facts are cruel: I cannot wg to my machine, but I can ts.

▲

ffsm8 4 days ago | parent [-]

I was just pointing out that the statement wrt "wireguard being blocked while tailscale works" is nonsensical.

It remains nonsensical no matter how uninformed the user may be - even if he's proud of being such, as you seem to be.

This was not a discussion about what tool to use if the person doesn't know about networking and is generally ... "less technical".

▲

solarkraft 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Right, it’s that specific person’s Wireguard configuration, which is likely a typical one as a result of Wireguard‘s defaults. Tailscale‘s defaults work better, hence the surface-level impression that plain Wireguard does not work in cases in which Tailscale does.

▲

BrandoElFollito 4 days ago | parent [-]

As I said above - how would you set up plain Wireguard in a place without the possibility of exposing a port, or even that does not have a public IP - and initiate the connection from outside that place? I would love to learn something. Without rebuilding tailscale (or whatever other solutions with STUN or whatnot).

▲

ffsm8 3 days ago | parent [-]

i think youre not hearing what - at least i - was saying.

I never said that running the same connectivity and NAT traversal via 2 nodes which are both inside of a NAT is possible. Neither did I ever claim you dont need a static public IP which _isnt_ behind a NAT / has an open port.

With Tailscale, these are being provided to you by them. Without them, you would have to maintain that yourself. This is a significant maintenance burder, which is why I - as in my very first comment you yourself responded to - pointed out that the service theyre providing is great and that i use it myself for that as well.

Nonetheless, _if wireguard was blocked, tailscaile wouldn't work either_

But its not blocked. Hence tailscale works. Just like wireguard would work, if you configured NAT traversal in some way. To get that working, you have multiple options, one of these being the STUN server. Another being an active participants in the VPN which facilitates the connection (not just the initiation, which the STUN server would be doing). easier to configure and maintain, but less performant.

Tailscale themselves actually have an incredibly indepth article on how they've implemented it on their end, its a little aged at this point, but I suspect they havent changed much (if any) since

https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works

	▲	BrandoElFollito 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> i think youre not hearing what - at least i - was saying. You said " it's nonsensical to say tailscale works in places where wireguard is blocked". If by "blocked" you mean "blocked at the firewall level through some kind of adaptive block that will recognize a wireguard connection based on its behaviour/nature of packets/whatever" → then yes, of course tailscale will not work either as it uses wg under the hood. If the OP message "tailscale has a much better chance to work when you need it most. WireGuard is blocked by too much stuff" means "I installed wireguard and it does not work (because whatever) but tailscale consistently delivers" → then it is not nonsensical at all. It is the right tool to start with. > Tailscale themselves actually have an incredibly indepth article on how they've implemented it on their end This is an excellent documentation to which I refer people as well.

▲

BrandoElFollito 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> even if he's proud of being such, as you seem to be

Of course on Internet nobody knows you are a dog. But hey, I may be someone who wrote a part of the Linux kernel in 1994, ran IT operations for a company that was big (big!) and then almost vanished (not my fault :)) and produces open source that you may have even used if you are "technical" as you say.

And set up WG in so many places, including a frontend that unfortunately did not get the worldwide success it should have :)

With this modest introduction - tailscale works where wireguard does not. I am not sure why my example was not obvious. You can reach the machine at my friend's with tailscale, not with plain wireguard. Of course if you open ports in the right places then yes! And check a few more things.

Now - how would you set up plain Wireguard in a place without the possibility of exposing a port, or even that does not have a public IP - and initiate the connection from outside that place? I would love to learn something. Without rebuilding tailscale (or whatever other solutions with STUN or whatnot).

▲

roflchoppa 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I’ve never noticed wireguard be blocked by something, have you experienced this?

	▲	baq 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		many times in public/hotel wifis. it's usually places which blanket ban UDP and allow TCP 80 and 443 exclusively. tailscale somehow manages to get a connection.