An open source, self-hosted implementation of the Tailscale control server

Every few months I come back to this repo to check if they finally got Tailnet lock running or if someone security audited them in the meanwhile. Unfortunately neither of these things seem to make any progress and thus, I’ve grown uncertain in how much I can trust this as a core part of my infrastructure.<p>The entire premise of Tailscale SaaS builds on creating tunnels around your firewalls, then enabling the user to police what is allowed to be routed through these tunnels in a intuitive and unified way.<p>Headscale seems to have nailed down the part of bypassing the firewall and doing fancy NAT-traversal, but can they also fulfill the second part by providing enough of their own security to make up for anything they just bypassed, or will they descend to just being a tool for exposing anything to the internet to fuck around with your local network admin? To me, not giving your Tailscale implementation any way for the user to understand or veto what the control server is instructing the clients to do while also not auditing your servers code at all sure seems daring…

If you&#x27;re interested in self-hosting your orchestration server, you can look into Netbird. It&#x27;s a very similar tool, but has the server open sourced as well. So you have a self-hosted control server with a nice GUI and all the features the paid version does.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;netbird.io&#x2F;knowledge-hub&#x2F;tailscale-vs-netbird" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;netbird.io&#x2F;knowledge-hub&#x2F;tailscale-vs-netbird</a>

Should add the project name, Headscale, to the title<p>Headscale has been on HN many times.

I think it would be neat if headscale allowed peering &#x2F; federating between instances. (Maybe <i>after</i> the ACL rework.) One of the main problems is address collisions.<p>So here&#x27;s my proposal: commit to ipv6-only overlay network in the unique local address (ULA) range, then split up the remaining 121 bits into 20 low bits for device addresses (~1M) and 101 high bits that are the hash of the server&#x27;s public key. Federate by adding the public key of the other instance and use policy and ACLs to manage comms between nodes.<p>I think it&#x27;s a nice idea, but the maintainer kradalby said it&#x27;s out of scope when I brought it up in 2023: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;juanfont&#x2F;headscale&#x2F;issues&#x2F;1370" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;juanfont&#x2F;headscale&#x2F;issues&#x2F;1370</a>

Headscale has been serving me well for half a year now. It is great, to the point I have no idea how I lived without a tailscale network before.<p>It is packaged in openbsd, and that package is the server I am using.

Love headscale, we just took it to production and it’s been great

Does it run on Plan 9?

Keep in mind that for many use cases (mobile access, GUI on macOS), this relies on the official Tailscale clients keeping the ability to set the control server.<p>The moment the inevitable enshitification will start at Tailscale, this feature will go away.<p>I’m saying this as a currently super happy Tailscale customer who was burned multiple times in the past by other companies being sold or running out of VC money

This looks interesting! What&#x27;s the added value over wireguard + openwrt setup?

How much is the risk of my devices being compromised if Tailscale coordination server is compromised, and tailnet lock is enabled?

&quot;To me, not giving your Tailscale implementation any way for the user to understand or veto what the control server is instructing the clients to do while also not auditing your servers code at all sure seems daring...&quot;<p>This statement sugggests that publishing the Headscale control server source code is not enough to allow the user to &quot;understand or veto what the control server is instructing the clients to do&quot;.<p>If using the Headscale control server, the user can &quot;understand or veto&quot; anything &quot;the control server is instructing the clients to do&quot;. This may be accomplished by reading, editing and compiling the source code.<p>If using the Tailscale control server, the user can only &quot;understand or veto what the control server is instruction the clients to do&quot; to the extent that the Tailscale company permits. The user is prohibited from editing or compiling the source code.<p>Not all users want the option to read, edit and compile third party software that they use. Some users may be comfortable relying on the ongoing assurances of companies funded by Silicon Valley VC. For those users that want the option of 100% open source projects, not dependent on venture capital, Headscale can be useful.<p>The author of Headscale calls the Tailscale coordination server &quot;essentially a shared dropbox for public keys&quot;.

How does headscale hold up when you&#x27;re streaming video over jellyfin&#x2F;plex?

wonder if some of the bugs with self-managing it have been worked out :)