Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I would like less battery usage with exit node.
    by aborsy
  • I read "netmap" and thought it was the 'fast packet I/O' system:

    * https://github.com/luigirizzo/netmap

    * https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc12/technical-sessions/p...

    * https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=netmap&sektion=4

    by throw0101c
  • In our use case latency went parabolic at 250 sessions pumping just 60 mb/s through a tunnel.
    by ykurtov
  • This all sounds great but until they stop it eating all my iOS battery I can't leave my phone connected continuously, which is such a pain.

    I'm not about to switch back to the configuration management hell that was pure wireguard but it would be really lovely to not have to connect/disconnect when I want to use tailscale

    by dust-jacket
  • Re: Tailscale and speeds, I wish Tailscale had a better story about relay / DERP flexibility.

    Assume we have devices a, b and c, which are basically in different segments of the same network and have nice pings to each other. We're trying to ssh from a to c, but NAT traversal isn't possible. Both a and c can do NAT traversal to b.

    Instead of a going all the way over to the DERP in WAW and then back to c again, it could go a->b->c instead.

    In my experience, DERPs are pretty slow and have high latency (compared to not going off-network at all), but there's no real way to avoid them if everything you have is behind some sort of NAT, even if some of them are trivially traversable (think "devices can do UPNP").

    by miki123211
  • I used to LOVE tailscale. Then I put wireguard on my home network exposed to the internet with a dynamic DNS provider and it immediately became irrelevant. Not only is raw wireguard more stable (I don't have to fight the DNS issues on my mobile phones) it feels faster and is amazingly simple to set up.
    by fitblipper
  • In my opinion, this is Tailscale's largest issue.

    It is slow. It cannot achieve speeds of greater than 1Gbps on clients systems (Windows & Mac), where you'd normally see it being used. On Linux, it struggles to achieve 10Gbps even when using a synthetic large packet benchmark [1]. With an IMIX benchmark, it would not be competitive whatsoever.

    This problem is fixable. WireGuard achieves higher performance (Kernel vs Userspace implementation) and IPsec implementations can achieve 100Gbps/400Gbps (DPDK/XDP). Zero-copy networking.

    From this blog post, I can say Tailscale still seems to not have the appetite for that, which is a shame.

    [1] https://tailscale.com/blog/more-throughput

    by iscoelho
  • (Tailscale cofounder) I see a few comments here that using kernel wireguard would make it faster; it’s not really that simple. In fact, for a while (and we wrote a blog post about it), our optimizations made wireguard-go faster than kernel wireguard because it was better optimized. They adopted some of those improvements and now we’re on to the next order of magnitude together.

    For really high bandwidth cases, things like DPDK are the long term best choice and are primarily userspace, for good reasons. Kernel mode is not the pure benefit it once was (if it ever was).

    Separately, wireguard itself has a problem that the crypto suite it uses is not supported by hardware accelerators. So if we want to get into the hundreds of gigabits range, we will possibly need to switch packet formats entirely. (But, wireguard also needs to update to support post-quantum so maybe they’ll fix both problems at the same time and we can join in.)

    by apenwarr

Explore Birbla archives