Tailscale Funnel will let you expose a host to everyone on the internet. You’ll need the Tailscale client running on either the Jellyfin host or a reverse proxy pointing to it. Tailscale itself will act as a reverse proxy with TLS encryption, plus a DNS server.

Exposing a service to the internet will always present some risk. You should definitely run your LXCs as unprivileged, unless needed otherwise, to mitigate the potential damage if an attacker escapes the container, or put the services in full virtual machines.

external access

Do you want the Jellyfin server to be accessible from only within your tailnet, or anywhere from the internet?

If you have IPv4 addresses, I guarantee you’re behind at least one NAT gateway. What you need is a Tailscale subnet router, or something equivalent from another service.

In the most basic configuration, the Tailscale client facilitates communication (by using some UDP black magic fuckery) between one host it is running on and another host it is running on that are both connected to the same tailnet (the virtual network between Tailscale hosts). For this purpose, it uses addresses from the 100.64.0.0/10 “shared address space” subnet. These addresses will only be reachable from within your tailnet.

If you want an entire subnet (e.g. your LAN) to be accessible within your tailnet, you need to set up a subnet router. This involves configuring the Tailscale client on a device within the target subnet to advertise routes (tailscale set --advertise-routes=192.168.1.0/24), allowing the host to advertise routes in the admin page (Machines -> … -> Edit routes), and configuring the Tailscale client on external hosts to accept advertised routes (tailscale set --accept-routes).

If you want your servers to be accessible from anywhere on the internet, you’ll need Tailscale Funnel. I don’t use it personally, but it seems to work. Make sure you understand the risks and challenges involved with exposing a service to the public if you want to choose this route.

All they had to do was remove all the bits that made it an Assassin’s Creed game and it would’ve been perfect. But they did Skull & Bones instead. It’s like they hate easy money.

bcachefs

I don’t know what Kent did, but I doubt it will surprise me at this point.

(edit) Fuck sake, Kent…

What in tarnation is a welfare state anyway? Is it one of them commie things?

(Feel the sarcasm, people.)

Like an alpha particle: very low penetrative power.

I’d love to know what an actual moderator would think if you imposed your idea on them.

report bad faith posts

You’re supposed to report posts that break instance or community rules, not whatever you happen to consider to be “bad faith”. You can’t moderate based on intent, only actions, otherwise you’re asking for a thought police where only the popular opinion is permitted to exist.

Besides, even if your instance has disabled downvotes, other instances can still see them.

Depending on your sorting method, downvoted posts will be featured less favorably in list views. You will immediately know that a heavily downvoted post is not worth your attention. Some clients might let you filter displayed posts based on vote counts or up/down ratio.

Downvote and move on. Mute accounts and communities you don’t want to see. Curate your own feed. Simple as.

The issue was ARP-related after all. Since all computers were cloned from the same image, the VMs ended up having the same MAC address, which caused collisions.

I think you need four distinct MAC addresses for this setup, are they all different?

We have a winner!

The classroom computers were mass-deployed using Clonezilla, from a disk image that already had the VM pre-configured. As a result, every VM had the same MAC address. Bridged networking put both hosts and both VMs in the same broadcast domain, which caused collisions in the ARP tables. I randomized the MAC address of one VM and everything suddenly started working.

It’s never been an issue since we’ve never needed to use anything other than the default NAT adapter, so I’ve never even questioned it. I found the solution after plugging the computers directly into an access switch without success, and cross-checking show mac address-table with the MAC reported by the VMs revealed that they were identical.

I checked ip neighbour (it also shows the ARP table, so I assume they’re identical), and it showed REACHABLE and STALE for addresses I could ping, but FAILED for the remote VM’s address. I will check arp -a when I get the chance, though.

I’ll give it a try tomorrow, thanks.

Although I’d still prefer to know why the VMs won’t talk over simple Ethernet.

deleted by creator

Considering how many websites were temporarily obliterated by the left-pad fiasco, being an npmjs maintainer might be an even higher power-to-effort ratio (by virtue of a near-zero denominator) than being a billionaire CEO.

It gets fast-paced and exciting when the boss has An Idea on a Friday afternoon that must be completed before the end of the week.

I’d take a confessional booth over an open office floor.

Realistically, is that a factor for a Microsoft-sized company, though? I’d be shocked if they only had a single layer of redundancy. Whatever they store is probably replicated between high-availability hosts and datacenters several times, to the point where losing an entire RAID array (or whatever media redundancy scheme they use) is just a small inconvenience.