Hi everyone,
this community is helping me a lot in starting my journey into the self-hosting world.
I’m currently just experimenting using my main pc as server, but I’m planning getting an old minipc and let it running 24h.
I wanted to give acces to my hosted service from outside my wifi and since I noticed my Frirzbox router support natively Wireguard VPN i just gave it a try.
It was super easy and worked flawlessly, I was able to access to my jellyfin library from 4g and other WiFi.
BUT I noticed a big loss in connection speed while using my VPN (e.g. from mb/s 400 to 200 or even worse) and I’m not sure it’s a good Idea to have all my devices constantly under this kind of loss forever.
Am I doing something wrong? Do you suggest other routes in order to expose my services to outside?
Thank you, and sorry if it’s a noob question.
On the client?
It’s a great suggestion honestly. I did not noticed that the Wireguard app let me setting which specific app should have the connection routed throw the VPN. This could be a solution to limit the performance loss only for self-hosted content
Here’s an example of what I use across multiple networks, with roaming and static devices. They all use a common /24 subnet (that doesn’t overlap with any of the common LAN subnets), and each gets it’s one /32 address in that subnet. That way each one accepts traffic from any other WG clients in the same subnet as local traffic to the host device. Essentially each PC, server, or phone thinks it’s on the same local network as every other WG client.
[Interface]
PrivateKey = XXX
ListenPort = 51820
Address = 10.172.43.11/24
### Every client gets an address in the 10.172.43.x network
[Peer]
PublicKey = XXXX
AllowedIPs = 10.172.43.15/32
### This device is a roaming phone or laptop, so it will be able to talk to the server when it wants to, but must initiate all traffic.
[Peer]
PublicKey = XXXX
AllowedIPs = 10.172.43.11/32, 192.168.1.0/24
#### This device is a router which is configured to NAT any traffic from WG to the LAN, so any WG device can talk to the LAN as if it's local
Endpoint = my.dynamic.dns.addres:51820
#### Use dynamic dns for any device that has a semi-permanent public IP and hosts ANY amount of content, files, or needs to be accessible to SSH
WireGuard is **WAY ** faster than any other VPN I’ve tested, and much more flexible. But at the cost of a little extra setup.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !selfhosted@lemmy.world
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).
On the client? It’s a great suggestion honestly. I did not noticed that the Wireguard app let me setting which specific app should have the connection routed throw the VPN. This could be a solution to limit the performance loss only for self-hosted content
Here’s an example of what I use across multiple networks, with roaming and static devices. They all use a common
/24subnet (that doesn’t overlap with any of the common LAN subnets), and each gets it’s one/32address in that subnet. That way each one accepts traffic from any other WG clients in the same subnet as local traffic to the host device. Essentially each PC, server, or phone thinks it’s on the same local network as every other WG client.WireGuard is **WAY ** faster than any other VPN I’ve tested, and much more flexible. But at the cost of a little extra setup.