• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About dsmith44

  • Rank


  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

945 profile views
  1. I have no idea why you are seeing this, the repo with the template in has clear latest tag. I've just done a clean install and got latest tag. Can you totally remove the image and try? Latest tag in dockerhub tag is 1.6.0 - https://hub.docker.com/layers/deasmi/unraid-tailscale/latest/images/sha256-89c29de3e44120014a41b9399c09a97732794527b0aff5cc3fcd1d8bb28abd6d?context=repo
  2. @jonp any clues on why we all have krb.conf (v4 if memory serves) instead of a krb5.conf in /etc? I think these are created by emhttp? Dean
  3. Ok, I've fixed this for me. Running a strace on the net ads join command it was referencing /var/cache/samba/smb_krb5/krb5.conf.SHORTDOMAIN in which there is the line include /etc/krb5.conf That file doesn't exist on my system, instead I have /etc/krb.conf. A symlink later and I can join the domain properly. I'm adding this to /boot/config/go for now # Fix missing /etc/krb5.conf if [ ! -f /etc/krb5.conf ] && [ -f /etc/krb.conf ]; then ln -s /etc/krb.conf /etc/krb5.conf fi
  4. I have the exact same issue. Have tested in gui-safe mode with all plugins disabled to no effect. Domain controller is a Data Centre 2019 VM running on a different Linux host. Tried joining with a normal user and domain admin - no difference. Trying a command line join gives loads of kerberos errors I can't work out. root@unraid:~# net ads join -U domainadmin Enter domainadmin's password: smb_krb5_init_context_common: Krb5 context initialization failed (Included profile file could not be read) kerberos_kinit_password_ext: kerberos init
  5. A couple of updates. I have changed the template to pull latest rather than versioned builds, tailscale itself is developing more slowly now so this feels appropriate. Please change the 'Repository' to deasmi/unraid-tailscale:latest to use this. Secondly I've merged in support for passing flags to tailscale. If you want to use this define a variable UP_FLAGS. These will be appended to the command that invokes tailscale. Please note if you are using UP_FLAGS I cannot provide support until it is removed, but I recognise some people may want to
  6. Looking at the Zerotier docker post that links here it looks like you got connectivity working, you can connect by IP to your unraid server's tailscale address. I do not believe that tailscale support multicast or broadcast traffic, so there won't be any way to get Bonjour working and have your Unraid appear as a browsable machine.
  7. I believe ACL support is only available in the paid version, which I do not have, nor have a need for. As such I am not planning to look at ACLs. Sorry.
  8. If the influx container is only listening on the ETH1 ip address, bridge mode, then I'm afraid this container probably isn't going to work for you. This will only allow you to access containers that listen on the tailscale interface ip address itself, not eth1, eth2 or any other interfaces. It is not providing a gateway to 'other networks' just exposing the Unraid server itself to tailscale.'other networks' in this context means absolutely anything that isn't the IP address of the tailscale interface. If you can make influxDB also bind to the tailscale interface then it
  9. I don't know what people have against the poor venerable while loop 😎, but I have changed to use a 'sleep infinity' instead which is slightly cleaner. Whilst your method will work, and is elegant, it's less 'obvious' about ordering, so I think I'll leave that alone.
  10. Re: host vs bridge mode Having thought this through I feel host is the correct mode for this to operate in. Host means the networking is part of the base host networking so if the host can see the port tailscale will be able to as well. However that relies on the mapped ports listening on all addresses, which if I check my unraid server they do. root@unraid:~# ss -ltu Netid State Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Address:Port
  11. Fixed, bit embarrasing that one... thanks.
  12. I will do some testing and perhaps change the definition to prefer bridge networking instead, my docker networking is a bit rusty so time for some reading I think.
  13. Version 0.98.1 is now available which contains the upstream fix for the issues in 0.98 :latest will contain this fix, 0.98.1 will contain this fix.
  14. My apologies, I shouldn't have pushed this as hadn't tested myself, thinking just a simple point update. This is broken currently and I don't know why. The STUN process isn't working in 0.98 in this docker container, I am going to build using their official Dockerfile and test outside of Unraid. If it doesn't work there either will submit a bug report, if it does then at least I can start narrowing down the cause. For now please use deasmi/unraid-tailscale:0.97 Update: I have recreated the issue on stand alone Ubuntu server and submitted iss
  15. Tailscale is, in my view, scratching a sligtly different itch. It is still wireguard, but it's wireguard plus NAT busting and zero management of many to many connections. I'm not just using this to connect to my unraid server, but also virtual servers. Unraid is joining my mesh here, this isn't providing access to my LAN remotely. If you want a hub and spoke model I'd suggest still using out of the box wireguard, if you want genuine point to point this is much easier to setup.