Selfhosted
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).
-
No trolling.
-
No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
view the rest of the comments
"It has effectively the same function as a proxy" isn't the same thing as "it's not actually a VPN".
One could argue you're not really using the tech to its fullest advantage, but the underlying tech is still a VPN. It's just a VPN that's being used as a proxy. You're still using the same VPN protocols that could be used in production for conventional site-to-site or host-to-network VPN configurations.
Regardless, you're the one who brought up commercial VPNs; when using OpenVPN to create a tunnel between a VPS and home server(s), it seems like it's being used exactly to "create private communication between multiple clients". Even by your definition that should be a VPN, right?
You're correct.
Most people only search for "VPN" because thats the term that got marketed for decades.
But the problem can be solved by using a proxy as well.
The intent of my comment was just to point to a second term - "proxy" - that can be used to find more valid, alternative solutions to the problem of making your homelab hosted services publicly available. And I think you agree with me, that proxy is the term closer to the usecase, even though we both correctly state that a VPN can be used as a proxy.
To make a bad analogy (it's the first thing that came to mind): It's like people buying a wok, even though they really just need a pan. And so they only search for wok, because every company says wok all the time, even though they will never use the wok as a wok, but just as a normal pan.
... in my case, I have a homelab, a VPS and a user of a service that runs on my homelab. The VPS is just a proxy for the homelab. The user (client) talks to the homelab (server), through the VPS (proxy) so not, not really a VPN, even if I'd set up openVPN between VPS and homelab. They are not two clients.
Fundamentally, a host-to-host VPN is still a VPN. It creates an encapsulated L2/L3 link between two points over another network. The number of hosts on either end doesn't change that. Each end still has its own own interface address, subnet, etcetera. You could use the exact same VPN config for both a host-to-host and host-to-site VPN simply by making one of the hosts a router.
I see your point about advocating for other methods where appropriate (although personally I prefer VPNs) but I think that gatekeeping the word "VPN" is silly.
If you have one of those cars that can be used as a boat. And you only ever use it in water and never on land, it doesn't really make sense to me to exclusively call it a car. Even though it factually is one, it acts as a boat. At least call it carboat.
If I have a VPN, but it's sole purpose is to take all the traffic that knocks on it's network-adapter and shove it down a dev/tun and vice verca, why can we not say (with the goal of clear communication and precise descriptions) that it effectively acts as a proxy ?
You're arguing two different points here. "A VPN can act as a proxy" and "A VPN that only acts as a proxy is no longer a VPN". I agree with the former and disagree with the latter.
A "real" host-to-network VPN could be used as a proxy by just setting your default route through it, just like a simple host-to-host VPN could be NOT a proxy by only allowing internal IPs over the link. Would the latter example stop being a VPN if you add a default route going from one host to the other?
the only poiny I am arguing for is:
if somebody is looking for a solution that is effectively equivalent to a proxy, they can enter into the search engine either "vpn" or "proxy" and they will find more results that will work for their usecase that way.
While you are getting hung up on semantics that I technically agree on, but I find meaningless in the real world usecase of looking for a solution that effectively works like a proxy.