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.
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…
Did they really roll-their-own for those functions? I thought this was just a control layer on top of Tailscale’s stock services on the backend, are they facilitating connections with novel methods? Apologies if I’m asking obvious questions, I use ZeroTier pretty regularly, but I am not too familiar with Tailscale.
Tailscale is still running for now, but I'm getting closer and closer to decommissioning it and switching entirely to Netbird.
Here's a gh issue for it.
Headscale has been on HN many times.
So here'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's public key. Federate by adding the public key of the other instance and use policy and ACLs to manage comms between nodes.
I think it's a nice idea, but the maintainer kradalby said it's out of scope when I brought it up in 2023: https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/issues/1370
It is packaged in openbsd, and that package is the server I am using.
We are still running the old headscale, because we have some integrations that will need to be ported to the new control plane. According to "headscale node list | wc" we have ~250 nodes, most of them are servers.
One thing I really don't love about tailscale some of the magic it does with the routing tables and adding firewall rules, but it has mostly not been an issue. Tailscale has worked really quite well.
We considered it as well but there was a feature missing that meant we couldn’t use it for one of our main requirements. Had that not been the case, we’d have rolled it out.
Especially in the unlikely event that you used Nix for the deployment.
The moment the inevitable enshitification will start at Tailscale, this feature will go away.
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
[1]: they have three: https://tailscale.com/kb/1065/macos-variants
That feels right to me. Headscale is mostly used by home labbers and small hobby users, it competes with self-hosted OpenVPN and WireGuard, not Pulsesecure, Cisco Anyconnect or GlobalProtect. It's a way to introduce Tailscale to people who love to try new shiny tech in their spare time, but don't want to give up control over their infrastructure.
Those people will then bring their Tailscale expertise and enthusiasm to work. Work really doesn't like managing IT infrastructure unless it's one of their core competencies.
Sure, some companies will actually choose Headscale over Tailscale proper, but I suspect that's a small minority (especially if you take company size and the money involved into account). That's just cost of revenue, not unlike Facebook advertising or billboards on the side of a road in Silicon Valley.
I have the same memory. But they may not feel that way forever. Many a company started by attracting developers with a generous free tier or open-source offering, then started to clamp down once the going got tough.
Heck, it happened to one of Tailscale's competitors, ZeroTier, which used to release their client software under GPLv3 but eventually switched to BSL.
The reason I can't use Tailscale at work is because it routes traffic through servers we can't control.
I would _love_ to use tailscale at work. It would solve so many problems. I am okay with being forced to open ports. But tunneling traffic through them is extremely worrysome.
You can run your own DERP servers and exclude the Tailscale ones even if you don’t run your own Headscale server: https://tailscale.com/kb/1118/custom-derp-servers
yes. Battery usage is super bad, mainly because of their DNS features which forces every DNS resolution to go through their network extension. At least recent updates have stopped the background power usage when you disconnect from the network in the app.
>But tunneling traffic through them is extremely worrysome.
it only does that in case of super bad NATs that make the usual NAT traversal techniques impossible. And presumably, the traffic is end-to-end-encrypted, so it doesn't matter if they have to be in the loop.
If you don't trust them to properly end-to-end encrypt, then it really doesn't matter whether they are in the loop for forwarding a packet or not because if you don't trust them to encrypt properly, all bets are off to begin with.
If you trust them however, it doesn't matter where the traffic is flowing through because only the intended machine is able to decrypt it.
People sometimes dismiss Tailscale as "just" a WireGuard orchestrator, but it's actually much more than that - From a product perspective, WireGuard is just an implementation detail.
I opted for Netbird myself because Headscale's UI felt too basic for me back then. Has that improved over the years probably?
Tailscale or having Headscale hosted somewhere else allows you to do that.
This statement sugggests that publishing the Headscale control server source code is not enough to allow the user to "understand or veto what the control server is instructing the clients to do".
If using the Headscale control server, the user can "understand or veto" anything "the control server is instructing the clients to do". This may be accomplished by reading, editing and compiling the source code.
If using the Tailscale control server, the user can only "understand or veto what the control server is instruction the clients to do" to the extent that the Tailscale company permits. The user is prohibited from editing or compiling the source code.
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.
The author of Headscale calls the Tailscale coordination server "essentially a shared dropbox for public keys".
It's semi-frequent in my case, and it's painful every time it does that since Tailscale's official DERP servers are very slow (they seem to have some aggressive QoS). It would be nice if Tailscale supported using regular TURN servers so I could just use one of the hosted solutions.
