3 ms·
How does this solution compare to Dynamic DNS services like DuckDNS? How about overlay networks like Tailscale? My initial impression is that it solves a simil
by pbronez 4y ago
How does this solution compare to Dynamic DNS services like DuckDNS? How about overlay networks like Tailscale?
My initial impression is that it solves a similar problem to DuckDNS (“how can I get a static, public IP for a machine on my residential LAN?”) using technology similar to Tailscale (WireGuard tunnels as a service).
Perhaps egress/public routing is the big advantage over Tailscale? Tailscale focuses on creating a trusted perimeter so all your devices can talk to each other securely. It doesn’t have an external gateway for other people to access specific devices within that perimeter. I think their business model / architecture may actually preclude this feature… they use their hosted service primarily for peer discovery, most traffic is routed P2P.
- vineyardmike 4y agoDynamic DNS solves a similar but different problem. As the name says, it focuses on DNS. It doesn’t solve the “I get a static IP” and instead accepts the IP won’t be static and focused on identifying and updating the IP as needed. Basically it sets a DNS record for your routers WAN IP. You would need to punch holes and do port mapping and all that jazz. Hoppy appears to solve this problem by providing a static endpoint to route traffic over. Tailscale eschews the public internet altogether, while providing Tailscale-network static IPs. Tailscale is the most strict/limited as you mentioned (not all devices can address into it) but the most secure (since each device has to be included and there’s no public internet). Hoppy seems next on secure/convenient list where anything should work but you have to use public internet.