Elektrine lite

← Feed

@Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu

2026-09-01 04:48 UTC

I don’t get the need for those tunnels. Wouldn’t a simple wireguard setup be enough un less you are behind CG-NAT? Wireguard it’s there, free, open source, doesn’t rely on any external server or company… What does these “tunnels” actually add?

Replies (3)

  • @Zikeji@programming.dev 2026-09-01 04:53

    The benefit here is the software by design can’t read your traffic - it’s using SNI to route, not the host header, so SSL pass thru keeps the payload private. It’s billed as shareable for that reason. Also this is open source and you can host it yourself.

    Open ##4647658

  • @feannag@sh.itjust.works 2026-09-01 06:26

    One would be CG-NAT as you mentioned, and some people want to host for other people too, potentially including too many people/too distant/too tech illiterate to easily set up WG.

    Open ##4649006

  • I checked and this does a similar thing. You can use WG to punch out a connection, and I have before. The linked program uses quic in a similar way to WG but doesn’t do any of the routing, just registers the connection to a hostname for application level forwarding. It looks more that it provides an easy setup for an alternative. Both methods can work on cg-nat as well since you are punching out.

    Open ##4649607