**VIDEO GUIDE How to route any container through the network of another (VPN)

[SpaceInvaderOne 665]

 

 

[mbc0 13]

Hi @SpaceInvaderOne

 

Again, thanks so much for this video! as well as all the others! 😄 I would be lost without them!

 

I am sure I am doing something wrong but for the life of me cannot see it?

 

I have entered this in my binhex-delugevpn which is running in bridge mode

 

 

 

this is my sabnzbd docker which has network type set to none

 

 

 

but all I get is this

 

 

Any suggestions? 🙂 Thank you and keep safe!

 

 

 

 

[sebstrgg 0]

19 hours ago, mbc0 said:

Hi @SpaceInvaderOne

 

Again, thanks so much for this video! as well as all the others! 😄 I would be lost without them!

 

I am sure I am doing something wrong but for the life of me cannot see it?

 

I have entered this in my binhex-delugevpn which is running in bridge mode

 

 

 

this is my sabnzbd docker which has network type set to none

 

 

 

but all I get is this

 

 

Any suggestions? 🙂 Thank you and keep safe!

 

 

 

 

I get the exact some problem. I've been trying to route multiple docker containers (firefox, xteve, hydra2) via binhex-delugevpn and binhex-sabnzbdvpn. Although I've done everything exactly as specified, I still end up with the dockers that are being routed not being accessible over my local network, but I can verify that the dockers are live and functioning towards the internet via the vpn connection.

I did notice a strange behaviour when checking open ports on the vpn-container (netstat -plnt) to verify that the ports were open, and sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't and sometimes they only seem to map up over ipv6. 

 

I really don't know enough about docker- and unraid-specific docker networking to troubleshoot it any further so any help would be greatly appreciated.

EDIT: I was running Unraid 6.8.3-stable with this behaviour and updated to 6.9.0-beta1 to verify that the problem is still occuring, which is is.

Edited April 12, 2020 by sebstrgg

[mbc0 13]

12 minutes ago, sebstrgg said:

I get the exact some problem. I've been trying to route multiple docker containers (firefox, xteve, hydra2) via binhex-delugevpn and binhex-sabnzbdvpn. Although I've done everything exactly as specified, I still end up with the dockers that are being routed not being accessible over my local network, but I can verify that the dockers are live and functioning towards the internet via the vpn connection.

I did notice a strange behaviour when checking open ports on the vpn-container (netstat -plnt) to verify that the ports were open, and somtimes they are, sometimes they aren't and sometimes they only seem to map up over ipv6. 

 

I really don't know enough about docker- and unraid-specific docker networking to troubleshoot it any further so any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your comment, 

 

It appears there are a few of us now spread across a few threads with the same issue, it's working but no Webui, I also have tried quite a few dockers now with the same result.

[ZooMass 3]

I have been experiencing the same issue with Jackett and LazyLibrarian. There has been some discussion of this web UI issue over on binhex-privoxyvpn (I lay out my details there). For the record, a lot of people are using that container instead of binhex-delugevpn as a dedicated VPN container. Any ideas or advice would be useful!

[mbc0 13]

Hi,

 

Just to update, I have installed binhex-privoxyvpn and followed exactly the same guide from @SpaceInvaderOne and it works perfectly, for some reason it just doesn't work for me using binhex-delugvpn docker.

[powderwt 1]

  

On 4/13/2020 at 5:49 PM, mbc0 said:

Hi,

 

Just to update, I have installed binhex-privoxyvpn and followed exactly the same guide from @SpaceInvaderOne and it works perfectly, for some reason it just doesn't work for me using binhex-delugvpn docker.

Curious, do you have binhex-privoxyvpn AND delugevpn? I already had deluge setup and have been trying to setup privoxy to start pointing containers to it instead, but was reading a comment from binhex himself saying not to change the container ports cause it wont work, but deluge uses the same 8118...

 

But trying to utilize Spaceinvader's method with deluge, i cant access the webui as he specified at all on anything i have tried so far...

 

Most particularly, im trying to get xteve docker setup using this.

[mbc0 13]

6 minutes ago, powderwt said:

  

Curious, do you have binhex-privoxyvpn AND delugevpn? I already had deluge setup and have been trying to setup privoxy to start pointing containers to it instead, but was reading a comment from binhex himself saying not to change the container ports cause it wont work, but deluge uses the same 8118...

 

But trying to utilize Spaceinvader's method with deluge, i cant access the webui as he specified at all on anything i have tried so far...

 

Most particularly, im trying to get xteve docker setup using this.

Hi, yes I have binhex delugevpn doing its own thing and binhex privoxy simultaneously running and pass through xteve, jackett and several others, all running perfectly.

 

 

[Simon Forest 0]

Anyone been able to do this using a VNC Viewer ? The container I'm using with this works and has it's IP changed but I can't get to the GUI with VNC

[powderwt 1]

4 hours ago, Simon Forest said:

Anyone been able to do this using a VNC Viewer ? The container I'm using with this works and has it's IP changed but I can't get to the GUI with VNC

When you do this in my experience, being able to click on the program in your docker tab and go to webui, will no longer work. Instead, you will have to verify that is is indeed running, and then open a new browser tab and navigate to your server ip, and then the port of the program in question(VNC) 

 

EX: 192.168.1.1:34400/web/

 

The example I just made, is how I access one of the dockers I have setup this way, but I believe that should get you close enough to be able to figure out what you're trying to do.

[mbc0 13]

4 hours ago, Simon Forest said:

Anyone been able to do this using a VNC Viewer ? The container I'm using with this works and has it's IP changed but I can't get to the GUI with VNC

You must use the ip of privoxy to connect

[Simon Forest 0]

19 hours ago, mbc0 said:

You must use the ip of privoxy to connect

Thanks for the reply guys, my container runs on the same IP as my Unraid server in bridge mode, so the VNC URL should be same (If I'm not wrong)

Tried with VNC Viewer too with the correct ports and it's still not working

[powderwt 1]

Did you try adding

 

" ... .1:8080/web/ "

 

To the end? Or whatever your ip:port may be? @Simon Forest

Edited October 18, 2020 by powderwt

[Jorgen 28]

Thanks for the reply guys, my container runs on the same IP as my Unraid server in bridge mode, so the VNC URL should be same (If I'm not wrong)
Tried with VNC Viewer too with the correct ports and it's still not working

Did you add the VNC port to the Privoxy container?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Simon Forest 0]

42 minutes ago, Jorgen said:

Did you add the VNC port to the Privoxy container?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did !

 

43 minutes ago, powderwt said:

Did you try adding

 

" ... .1:8080/web/ "

 

To the end? Or whatever your ip:port may be? @Simon Forest

Error 404 and tried multiple combination

My normal VNC URL looks like this : http://[IP]:[PORT]/vnc.html?resize=remote&host=[IP]&port=[PORT]&autoconnect=1

[gzibell 0]

Hi @SpaceInvaderOne, 

 

Just curious what the difference is between this and using privoxy method that is built into the container?  I have had that setup since I watched your video back when I first setup my server.  Has been running great ever since.  Is there any benefit to changing to this method over privoxy or are they both similar from a performance/security standpoint and this is just a way to accomplish the same thing if the container to be routed through the vpn doesn't have a proxy setting. 

[jonathanm 1139]

Not spaceinvaderone, but the clear advantage to using full passthrough vs privoxy is you are assured of all communications going through the tunnel, vs just web traffic.

[gzibell 0]

3 minutes ago, jonathanm said:

Not spaceinvaderone, but the clear advantage to using full passthrough vs privoxy is you are assured of all communications going through the tunnel, vs just web traffic.

Confused, what traffic besides web traffic would you want to route through the tunnel?  Or rather what traffic would not be routed through the proxy?  If I shutdown my delugevpn container I can get to the other apps webui but they can't get out to anything else

[Jorgen 28]

Confused, what traffic besides web traffic would you want to route through the tunnel?  Or rather what traffic would not be routed through the proxy?  If I shutdown my delugevpn container I can get to the other apps webui but they can't get out to anything else

Hiding DNS lookups from your ISP would be one example of traffic that normally bypasses the proxy.
But the main use case is to use the VPN tunnel for docker apps that don’t support the use of a proxy at all. NZBget would be one example, but there are many more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dc88 0]

Hello all,

I originally followed this thread's directions on setting this up, but found Spaceinvader's video as well.

 

I setup a proper ovpn_privoxy container that is connecting to my vpn of choice. I was able to successfully shift my deluge container over to it, and confirmed it's behind the VPN now. 

 

The problem, however, is the ability for any of my other containers, such as radarr or sonarr, to be able to access the deluge via the proxy container ip with 8112 as the port. I can get to the deluge web page without issue and manage it just fine, but if I try to test my connection to it via radarr or sonarr, i get "No route to host". 

 

Originally, these other containers were set to run under br0 network, but i've also attempted bridge and host options to see if there is any difference, and there is not. Host access to custom networks is set to Enabled as well. Any thoughts or things I could try I would greatly appreciate. I would like to keep some of my containers off the vpn container connection, and a couple of those need to be able to talk to ones in the vpn container network.