5 ms·
Yep we had it rejected w an enterprise we work with as the org needed to own the full control plane so we couldn't bring it in, and not on the schedule for the
by lmeyerov 5y ago
Yep we had it rejected w an enterprise we work with as the org needed to own the full control plane so we couldn't bring it in, and not on the schedule for the org's security team for them to bring it in. Making a smarter, easier, and less creepily managed VPN more palatable to enterprises would be awesome, so the marketing value of their fundraise is real.
- RL_Quine 5y agoThere's a kind of WIP control server implementation, it's not production ready in my opinion but it's definitely usable. https://github.com/juanfont/headscale https://github.com/juanfont/headscale
- lmeyerov 5y agoSuper cool, and a lot of contributors! Can this work the rest of the wireguard ecosystem (agents, UIs, ...) for a full VPN soln without involving the VC-tied company?
- RL_Quine 5y agoYes, it's usable with every tailscale client (except for iOS). You provide an argument to make headscale your controller, and then it works much the same as the hosted Tailscale service, with some only minor differences in configuration.
- madjam002 5y agoYes it works with all of the Tailscale clients except for iOS. No it does not work with clients from the broader Wireguard ecosystem (e.g the Wireguard iOS app).
- chipsa 4y agoI've seen them mention that they're looking at having the coordination server being self-hostable (and is for some client already), so I expect that to be one of the things you can get at the higher price points in the near future.