Gluetun is a great example of "I changed nothing and it suddenly works". I've had to set up this exact docker container several times, and it usually takes me a week of retries until it chooses to work. I wish I had better advice for you
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.
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!
I've just setup headscale in docker and it worked right away. It's even faster than when I was using tailscale. It was very easy to setup and I've been using it for about a month with no issues. Doesn't really help but I haven't used gluetun myself.
Headscale has been my go-to for the past 6 months - it's so reliable that I use it to connect to my self-hosted audiobookshelf server from anywhere using the soundleaf app on my iphone and it nver drops connection even on spotty mobile data.
Is there a reason not to use Tailscale for this?
I wanted to do it with pure wireguard. I like the headscale idea though. Might give that a shot.
Besides being easy, there is no advantage to tailscale for this case, and I would add that lots of us don't want to depend on an external resource just to road warrior back home.
I don't think you want two VPN services, I think you want one VPN service and plain network routing. Use the VPN server as the local gateway, and the VPN server routes that traffic up the tunnel.
How does one do this? Is there an article I could read up on?
I use a variant of this: https://github.com/linuxserver/docker-wireguard
You don't need two different containers for this. They're going to either fight each other for control over the networking tables or run wireguard in wireguard
If you have the WireGuard config from Mullvad already, just edit your wg.conf files on client devices to route all traffic via the Mullvad servers. Basically replace all the values of the [Peer] block with Mullvad values.
If you can share your Mullvad wg config file and your wireguard-server config file here, we can sort this out together
Edit: actually since your only goal is to increase the Mullvad device limits, why not just use Mullvad-provided confs directly in your client WireGuard apps? Should be straightforward to do
I'm trying to do something similar. I am using Wireguard to VPN to my home network. Then I want to route all home internet traffic through one Mullvad instance. How would I do this? So far all my attempts have failed, I was trying to set routes but I don't have an expert understanding of both VPN settings in regards to Linux networking.
Is doing this in Docker necessary? I like containerization too but a VPN server seems a little intense — why not install it directly?
I prefer docker because I can plop it in elsewhere if needed.
The network_mode: service: gluetun looks off to me but I can't check.
Does each one their own?
Not sure what you mean here, but I am quite sure I need to set the network mode like that to route the network through the VPN.
You're right, sorry! I checked it https://github.com/qdm12/gluetun-wiki/blob/main/setup/connect-a-container-to-gluetun.md#external-container-to-gluetun
Have you confirmed that port forwarding to gluetun is working?