I have two machines running docker. A (powerful) and B (tiny vps).

All my services are hosted at home on machine A. All dns records point to A. I want to point them to B and implement split horizon dns in my local network to still directly access A. Ideally A is no longer reachable from outside without going over B.

How can I forward requests on machine B to A over a tunnel like wireguard without loosing the source ip addresses?

I tried to get this working by creating two wireguard containers. I think I only need iptable rules on the WG container A but I am not sure. I am a bit confused about the iptable rules needed to get wireguard to properly forward the request through the tunnel.

What are your solutions for such a setup? Is there a better way to do this? I would also be glad for some keywords/existing solutions.

Additional info:

  • Ideally I would like to not leave docker.
  • Split horizon dns is no problem.
  • I have a static ipv6 and ipv4 on both machines.
  • I also have spare ipv6 subnets that I can use for intermediate routing.
  • I would like to avoid cloudflare.
  • @pcouy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    35 months ago

    Each time you send a packet over the internet, several routers handle this packet without touching the source and destination IP addresses.

    There is nothing stopping him from configuring the VPS in a way that forwards packets from the home server, rewriting the destination IP (and optionally destination port as well) but leaving the source IP intact.

    For outgoing packets, the VPS should rewrite the source (homeserver) IP and port and leave the destination intact.

    With iptables, this is done with MASQUERADE rules.

    This is pretty much how any NAT, including ones behind home routers, work.

    You then configure the homeserver to use the VPS as a gateway over wireguard, which should achieve the desired result.

    • @ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15 months ago

      Yeah, I was just confused about the direction/flow he was asking for. He clarified and his use case is fully solvable. Just not something I’ve personally dabbled in since he wants it for non http traffic.