I have two machines running docker. A (powerful) and B (tiny vps).

All my services are hosted at home on machine A. All dns records point to A. I want to point them to B and implement split horizon dns in my local network to still directly access A. Ideally A is no longer reachable from outside without going over B.

How can I forward requests on machine B to A over a tunnel like wireguard without loosing the source ip addresses?

I tried to get this working by creating two wireguard containers. I think I only need iptable rules on the WG container A but I am not sure. I am a bit confused about the iptable rules needed to get wireguard to properly forward the request through the tunnel.

What are your solutions for such a setup? Is there a better way to do this? I would also be glad for some keywords/existing solutions.

Additional info:

  • Ideally I would like to not leave docker.
  • Split horizon dns is no problem.
  • I have a static ipv6 and ipv4 on both machines.
  • I also have spare ipv6 subnets that I can use for intermediate routing.
  • I would like to avoid cloudflare.
  • z3bra@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Keeping the source IP intact means you’ll have troubles routing back the traffic through host B.

    Basically host A won’t be able to access the internet without going through B, which could not be what you want.

    Here’s how it works:

    On host A:

    • add a /32 route to host B public IP through your local ISP gateway (eg. 192.168.1.1)
    • setup a wireguard tunnel between A and B
    • host A: 172.17.0.1/30
    • host B: 172.17.0.2/30
    • add a default route to host B wireguard IP

    On host B:

    • setup wireguard (same config)
    • add PAT rules to the firewall so to DNAT incoming requests on the ports you need to 172.17.0.1
    • add an SNAT masquerade rule so all outbound request from 172.17.0.1 are NATed with host B public address.

    This should do what you need. However, if I may comment it out, I’d say you should give up on carrying the source IP address down to host A. This setup I described is clunky and can fail in many ways. Also I can see no benefits of doing that besides having “pretty logs” on host A. If you really need good logs, I’d suggest setting up a good reverse proxy on host B and forwarding it’s logs to a collector on host A.

  • Decronym@lemmy.decronym.xyzB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:

    Fewer Letters More Letters
    CGNAT Carrier-Grade NAT
    Git Popular version control system, primarily for code
    HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol, the Web
    IP Internet Protocol
    NAT Network Address Translation
    SSL Secure Sockets Layer, for transparent encryption
    TLS Transport Layer Security, supersedes SSL
    VPN Virtual Private Network
    VPS Virtual Private Server (opposed to shared hosting)
    nginx Popular HTTP server

    8 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 15 acronyms.

    [Thread #474 for this sub, first seen 2nd Feb 2024, 07:35] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

  • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Preserve the source IP you say, why?

    The thing is that if you could (without circumventing the standards) do so then that implies that IP isn’t actually a unique identifier, which is needs to be. It would also mean circumventing whitelists / blacklists would be trivial (it’s not hard by any means but has some specific requirements).

    The correct way to do this, even if there might be some hack you could do to get the actual source IP through, is to put the source in a ‘X-Forwarded-For’ header.

    As for ready solutions I use NetBird which has open source clients for Windows, Linux and Android that I use without issues and it’s perfectly self-hostable and easy to integrate with your own IDP.

      • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        If you can fool the Internet that traffic coming from the VPS has the source IP of your home machine what stops you from assuming another IP to bypass an IP whitelist?

        Also if you expect return communication, that would go to your VPS which has faked the IP of your home machine. That technique would be very powerful to create man in the middle attacks, i.e. intercepting traffic intended for someone else and manipulating it without leaving a trace.

        IP, by virtue of how the protocol works, needs to be a unique identifier for a machine. There are techniques, like CGNAT, that allows multiple machines to share an IP, but really it works (in simplified terms) like a proxy and thus breaks the direct connection and limits you to specific ports. It’s also added on top of the IP protocol and requires specific things and either way it’s the endpoint, in your case the VPS, which will be the presenting IP.

    • raldone01@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I have heard of it seems like a good option. If you use it please tell me if it can fullfil my requirements.

      Mhh I didn’t know headscale exists. Tailscale being proprietary was the main thing keeping me from using it.

      • RiderExMachina@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I haven’t used Tailscale myself, but it seems like it’s basically just a Wireguard frontend.

        • Lunch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Although correct, there feature set is amazing and expanding. Tailscale is my number one tool of choice, these days, it’s so simple and so handy.

          • RiderExMachina@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            “Technically correct” is the best form of correct. Though having tried setting up Wireguard in the past, having a dead-simple solution like Tailscale might be worth trying it out, especially with the 100 device free tier