5 ms·

1. thanks for linking that 2. the comparison: - protocol: wireguard is now baseline - speed: netmaker is faster because it uses kernel wg - this is not going

1. thanks for linking that 2. the comparison: - protocol: wireguard is now baseline - speed: netmaker is faster because it uses kernel wg - this is not going to hold true for all system configurations, certainly doesn't for macos - flexibility: feels like it does the same as tailscale, marketed slightly different as they list common use-cases – egress and ingress gateways; network shaping with acls is also possible in ts; maybe someone will write-up an unbiased comparison on self hosting - price: ts offer seems to be good enough for most users and their limits are "soft" anyway – i pay $45 a year because i want sustainable, not free looking for reasons to change and don't find any

yardstick 3y ago
What’s your approach to routing the mesh? Static? BGP? Something else?
- GhostWhisperer 3y ago
  i don't route any traffic besides the odd exit-node, and tailscale takes care of that for me the exit-node routing is for firewall circumvention - if i find myself unable to connect to git over ssh, i simply activate routing through the exit-node and continue working the exit-node sits at home where i set the rules
ignoramous 3y ago
> - speed: netmaker is faster because it uses kernel wg - this is not going to hold true for all system configurations, certainly doesn't for macos Unless something changed super recently, tailscale (per their own claims) are faster than (linux) kernel wg: https://tailscale.com/blog/throughput-improvements/ https://tailscale.com/blog/throughput-improvements/ Surprisingly, we improved the performance of wireguard-go (running in userspace) enough to make it faster than WireGuard (running in the kernel) in the best conditions. But, this point of comparison likely won’t be long-lived: we expect the kernel can do similar things.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
  Huh, would be interesting to see some non-tailscale benchmarks of this. Assuming the kernel impl is actually optimized it should be theoretically impossible to exceed the performance with userland wg?
  - SparkyMcUnicorn 3y ago
    I ran the same benchmarks they listed here[0], and did some practical tests. As of a week after the article being written, Tailscale was faster than kernel wireguard. [0] https://tailscale.com/blog/more-throughput/ https://tailscale.com/blog/more-throughput/

yardstick 3y ago

What’s your approach to routing the mesh? Static? BGP? Something else?

GhostWhisperer 3y ago
i don't route any traffic besides the odd exit-node, and tailscale takes care of that for me the exit-node routing is for firewall circumvention - if i find myself unable to connect to git over ssh, i simply activate routing through the exit-node and continue working the exit-node sits at home where i set the rules

ignoramous 3y ago

> - speed: netmaker is faster because it uses kernel wg - this is not going to hold true for all system configurations, certainly doesn't for macos Unless something changed super recently, tailscale (per their own claims) are faster than (linux) kernel wg: https://tailscale.com/blog/throughput-improvements/ https://tailscale.com/blog/throughput-improvements/ Surprisingly, we improved the performance of wireguard-go (running in userspace) enough to make it faster than WireGuard (running in the kernel) in the best conditions. But, this point of comparison likely won’t be long-lived: we expect the kernel can do similar things.

SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
Huh, would be interesting to see some non-tailscale benchmarks of this. Assuming the kernel impl is actually optimized it should be theoretically impossible to exceed the performance with userland wg?
- SparkyMcUnicorn 3y ago
  I ran the same benchmarks they listed here[0], and did some practical tests. As of a week after the article being written, Tailscale was faster than kernel wireguard. [0] https://tailscale.com/blog/more-throughput/ https://tailscale.com/blog/more-throughput/