Selfhosted

61855 readers

401 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

Replacing Cloudflare Tunnel with a Selfhosted Towonel Tunnel (blog.jameswynn.com)

submitted 1 day ago by eodur@piefed.social to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Every public request to one of my sites used to go through a Cloudflare tunnel. I had a cloudflared deployment in my cluster, some routing rules, and everything just worked. And it was free! But that bugged me. TANSTAAFL right? The whole point of selfhosting is to not rely on big cloud company, and there are few bigger than Cloudflare. And Cloudflare’s tunnels decrypt every single packet, so they see everything you do. I really don’t like that.

So I’ve replaced Cloudflare tunnels with Erwan Leboucher’s towonel, a selfhosted tunnel implementation. I still have my DNS on Cloudflare, but no data is moving through them any more.

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] K3can@lemmy.radio 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's exactly the use case for "tunnels": allowing public, incoming connections behind CGNAT.

Wireguard requires a public IP on at least one side of the connection and only allows private access. If you want to host a blog or website AND you're behind CGNAT, then a "tunnel" service is a very easy solution.

Edit: my previous blog post on the topic: https://blog.k3can.us/posts/2025/feb/2025-02-21_cloudflarefort/

[–] Undaunted@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But going with a self-hosted approach like Towonel, you need a server with a public IP too. And I think what the commenter meant is, if you already have that, you can just setup a WireGuard connection to that public server, so that it can route the traffic to your local network.

[–] K3can@lemmy.radio 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Oh, maybe I misunderstood? It sounded like he didn't understand what advantage a "tunnel" could provide.

If your server is behind CGNAT, you need a TURN-style "tunnel" to allow incoming connections. If you have your own remote server with a public IP, then you can absolutely use that and create the tunnel using wireguard (or openvpn, ssh, etc).

I just mentioned CF in my blog post because it's probably the most popular solution.

The point is, if you have CGNAT, you need to create that "tunnel" somehow if you want to allow incoming connections.