For folks that are unable to port forward on the local router (eg CGNAT) I made this post on doing it via a VPS. I’ve scoured the internet and didn’t find a complete guide.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    In most environments ipv6 bypasses cgnat (because, why would you need a nat with ipv6).

    • ntn888@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Like I said ip6 is useless when it comes to torrenting. Even if the tracker supports it it’s not persavive with users connecting to you.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        The general topic was about self-hosting. IPv6 is very useful for self-hosting,… connections.

        I’ll admit there is a critical mass problem with torrenting clients, but if you’re trying to set up a wire guard tunnel with your friends, IPv6 is a absolute banger

  • andscape@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    Nice, I recently went through the same struggle of setting up this configuration based on that LinuxServer post. My main nitpick on this is that automating the ip route configuration for the qBittorrent container is a pretty important step which is not explained in the post. Leaving any manual steps in any Docker setup is pretty bad practice.

    Since you’re using LinuxServer’s QBT image a good way to do this is to make use of their standard custom init scripts. You can just mount a script with the ip route commands to /custom-cont-init.d/my-routes.sh:ro on the container and it will be run automatically on each startup.

    Another nitpick is that the PostDown commands in the wireguard configs are useless since you’re running them in Docker.

    • ntn888@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Thanks for the addition. It’s also mentioned in that original blog post I linked in the article.

    • ntn888@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yes that’s how I’m automating it, and it’s noted in the blog I highlighted. Your point about post down does make sense 😕

  • PunkiBas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 days ago

    Thanks for the nice write-up, saving it in case I find myself behind CGNAT in the future.

  • ѕєχυαℓ ρσℓутσρє@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Hey, great post. I have one request. Can you maybe add some description for what the iptables entries do? I have a similar setup with a lot less iptables rules that works well for me. But I’m not an expert in networking, and am now worried that I might be missing something that can leak my home IP.

    • ntn888@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Thanks for the feed back. I started out with that post I referenced in my article, which had fewer entries. It didn’t work. Caveat was although the online port checkers were reporting the port as open, it was not actually making through the tunnel!

      I actually solved it by asking chatgpt!! I put in the suggestions and it worked. I’m also no expert on creating iptables, but once it was in place it seemed self explanatory.

      I ran netcat as client-server to test it actually worked.

      • andscape@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        Idk man, it seems pretty irresponsible to me to write a blogpost with stuff that you got from ChatGPT without understanding it. People will assume that if you wrote a blogpost on this then you know what you’re doing. ChatGPT gets stuff wrong all the time, and we’re talking about firewall configuration here. If it misconfigured some stuff it could leave you and your readers vulnerable to all kinds of shit.

        In this case it seems to me that (luckily) there’s just a bunch of redundant routing, but the next time it could be leaking your and your readers’ torrent traffic out of the VPN tunnel, leaving you vulnerable to legal repercussions for piracy.

        Please don’t authoritatively post stuff that you got from the automatic bullshit generator without understanding it.

        • ntn888@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          I understand what you mean. It’s become a habit of mine lately, and I learn lots in the discussion to.

          In my defence I did run some tests and confirm it’s functioning.

        • ntn888@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          I understand what you mean. It’s become a habit of mine lately, and I learn lots in the discussion to.

          In my defence I did run some tests and confirm it’s functioning.

          • andscape@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 days ago

            Look at the very least you should write in the blogpost clearly which parts are generated by LLMs, so your readers can decide whether to trust them.

      • ѕєχυαℓ ρσℓутσρє@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I took a look at it. From what I understand, some of the lines in your setup are redundant. The final product seems to do basically the same job as mine. In any case, if it works, it works.

    • ntn888@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      Oh cool. I couldn’t find any info on doing this. And struggled lots at I don’t understand Iptables