I'll stick to my 100% self-hosted Wireguard setup, thank you very much.

nicman23 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

i really dislike that there is no way to do dhcp for new clients and that i have to manually define peers in each "exit node"

▲

m_mueller 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why not tailscale plus head scale for self hosting?

▲

diarrhea 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

I do not understand this rebuttal.

I also run self-hosted Wireguard. Initially on a Debian box, nowadays it is integrated into my router (admittedly, this is closed source). For around 6 years at this point.

The whole thing could not be easier and simpler. It has never randomly broken on me. It is fast. It is free. There is no middle man, no vendor.

I never understood the popularity of Tailscale, though that is on me. I'm sure it is a great product, I just never tried it, do not seem the target audience.

What confuses me is the often accompanying, sometimes aggressive anti-selfhosting stance in these sorts of threads. I do not see this in other topics, e.g. someone mentioning they run Jellyfin isn't met with "why not Plex?". Where does that come from? We are on HackerNews, not ProductShillNews, aren't we? I guess self hosting Wireguard is too boring to warrant any further discussion? The VPN equivalent of a Toyota Corolla.

	▲	MobiusHorizons 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think Tailscale is popular because of how plug and play it is for most people. Although the main reason I use it over self hosting wireguard is the NAT busting it does, which has so far worked flawlessly for me with no setup aside from installing on both devices. There is nothing wrong with self hosting wireguard, but it doesn't actually do the same job as tailscale.

▲

doctorpangloss an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

haha self hosted wireguard, an opportunity to find out AllowedIPs: 0.0.0.0/0 does the opposite of what you think it will do

	▲	cromka an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]