this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
92 points (98.9% liked)

Selfhosted

59360 readers
658 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

  7. No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So you don't want to port-forward on your home router or have Cloudflare decrypt all your traffic? Check out Towonel.

Most open source Cloudflare Tunnel alternatives involve setting up a VPS, terminating TLS there on a reverse proxy, then setting up a Wireguard tunnel to your server at home.

Towonel is different: it does not decrypt your traffic on the VPS and you can easily share one, so not every self-hoster has to buy and maintain a VPS.

Check it out!

Mastodon link: https://gts.erwanleboucher.dev/@eleboucher/statuses/01KS4YNA2SYMSP0FSKJVNJA155

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] irmadlad@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

It's interesting OP. I use the evil Cloudflare Tunnels/Zero Trust, and I'm pretty much sold on it, much to the chagrin of others here. Yes, there are caveats, pros and cons. Even tho I am sold on the product, I would entertain a clone/fork/rewrite if it gave me everything that Cloudflare Tunnels/Zero Trust along with the security features. I'll do some reading once the blog is back up.

[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 30 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Oh great. So now there's a tuwunel and a towonel and they're completely different things.

(tuwunel is a fork of the matrix backend conduwuit. not to be confused with continuwuity, another conduwuit fork)

[–] fhoekstra@feddit.nl 23 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

I know, the naming isn't ideal.

On the bright side, you can now expose multiple tuwunel instances via a single towonel and federate with other tuwunels on other towonels for maximum uwu owo

Which is almost what my friends and I are doing, except we're running continuwuity instead of tuwunel.

[–] irmadlad@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago

Holy shit. That's all I got

[–] T4V0@lemmy.pt 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Huh, I wasn't aware there were Conduit forks, thanks!

Oh right, forgot to mention conduwuit was itself a fork of conduit. Man

[–] Deebster@infosec.pub 11 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

So I built towonel. In Rust, partly because I wanted to learn the language properly

This bit makes me a little wary.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Why? I didn’t know python until one of my clients decided they would only use it for everything going forward. It took me all of a day to start converting C# code and this was a decade before LLMs.

Knowledge of a specific language does not reflect development skill.

[–] MinFapper@startrek.website 0 points 41 minutes ago (1 children)

Yes, but ported C# usually doesn't make for the most idiomatic Python.

99% of the time that doesn't matter, but a highly security sensitive reverse proxy shared by multiple users most likely part of the stack to be attacked might be an exception.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 1 points 34 minutes ago

I like how you just assumed that what I was doing wasn’t security oriented…

[–] BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Do most people running a vps reverse proxy terminate tls on the vps? I just proxy TCP 1:1 without touching it to my homelab over my wireguard tunnel. That seems easier than coordinating between the vps which services I'm running locally.

[–] hamFoilHat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Do you have a link to a tutorial or an example setup for that? I've wanted that exact setup but couldn't find how to do it.

[–] BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago

Not really haha, you could say I followed a tutorial for setting up a wireguard server on a VPS, and then once I had the wireguard container running and my homelab boxes as clients, I started up an haproxy container on the VPS with network_mode: "service:wireguard" so that the wireguard container can also see my homelab boxes through the tunnel, then also added ports 80 and 443 to the wireguard container on the VPS (in addition to the 51820 for incoming wireguard connections) - that has to be on the wireguard container because using network_mode means the haproxy container piggy backs on the wireguard container's network, then I added a simple haproxy config that listens on 80/443 on the VPSes public IP and proxies it to the appropriate box on the other side of the tunnel.

For the wireguard config, the key seems to be using mode tcp in any backend or frontend that's connected to port 443, so that it just proxies raw data without doing termination. With SNI, you can even proxy to different wireguard clients based on domain, because SNI exposes the domain without needing to do termination. So I do that because I have my NAS as well as a NUC connected to the wireguard network hosting different things.

This is a stripped down version of my haproxy config:

global
    maxconn     20000
    log         127.0.0.1 local0
    daemon

defaults
    mode http
    timeout connect 10s
    timeout client 1m
    timeout server 1m
    maxconn 8000
    option tcpka
    option tcp-smart-connect
    default-server init-addr last,libc,none

resolvers docker
    parse-resolv-conf

frontend ingress_http
    bind :::80
    bind :80

    acl h_secondbox_http hdr(host) -i second.box.example.com
    use_backend secondbox_http if h_secondbox_http

    default_backend vault_http

frontend ingress_https
    mode tcp
    bind :::443
    bind :443
    tcp-request inspect-delay 5s
    tcp-request content accept if { req_ssl_hello_type 1 }

    acl h_secondbox_https req_ssl_sni -i second.box.example.com
    use_backend secondbox_https if h_secondbox_https

    default_backend vault_https

backend vault_http
    server vault_server_http 10.13.13.2:80 send-proxy-v2
backend vault_https
    mode tcp
    server vault_server_https 10.13.13.2:443 send-proxy-v2

backend secondbox_http
    server secondbox_server_http 10.13.13.3:80 send-proxy-v2
backend secondbox_https
    mode tcp
    server secondbox_server_https 10.13.13.3:443 send-proxy-v2

The way this is set up, I do have to manually enter every subdomain I want to go to my second box, but the default is to route to my main vault, which is where I host most stuff anyways.

My docker compose on the VPS is pretty simple:

services:
  wireguard:
    image: linuxserver/wireguard:latest
    container_name: wireguard
    restart: unless-stopped
    cap_add:
      - NET_ADMIN
      - SYS_MODULE
    environment:
      - PUID=0
      - PGID=0
      - TZ=America/New_York
      - SERVERURL=wg.example.com #optional
      - SERVERPORT=51820 #optional
      - PEERS=vault,secondbox #optional
      - PEERDNS=auto #optional
      - INTERNAL_SUBNET=10.13.13.0 #optional
      - ALLOWEDIPS=10.13.13.1/24 #optional
      - PERSISTENTKEEPALIVE_PEERS=all #optional
      - LOG_CONFS=true #optional
    volumes:
      - ./volumes/wg-config:/config
    ports:
      - 51820:51820/udp
      - 80:80/tcp
      - 443:443/tcp
      - 8090:8090/tcp
    sysctls:
      - net.ipv4.conf.all.src_valid_mark=1

  haproxy:
    image: haproxy:lts
    container_name: haproxy
    restart: unless-stopped
    network_mode: "service:wireguard"
    depends_on:
      - wireguard
    volumes:
      - ./volumes/haproxy-config:/usr/local/etc/haproxy

Then on the local side I use the same network_mode: "service:wireguard" trick to link my traefik container to the wireguard container, that way traffic hitting ports 80/443 of the wireguard container which is on the tunnel is also seen by traefik:

services:
  boringtun:
    image: boringtun
    build: ./boringtun-docker
    container_name: boringtun
    restart: always
    privileged: true
    cap_add:
      - NET_ADMIN
    devices:
      - "/dev/net/tun:/dev/net/tun"
    volumes:
      - "./volumes/wg-config/wg0.conf:/etc/wireguard/wg0.conf"
    logging:
      driver: "json-file"
      options:
        max-size: "400k"
        max-file: "20"
    environment:
      - INTERFACE_NAME=wg0
      - WG_SUDO=1
      - WG_QUICK_USERSPACE_IMPLEMENTATION=/app/boringtun
    entrypoint: /bin/bash
    command: -c "wg-quick up wg0 && sleep infinity"
    extra_hosts: # Allows containers to access the host machine as host.docker.internal, useful for remote access to the host through a container
      - "host.docker.internal:host-gateway"
    networks:
      - ingress

  traefik:
    image: traefik:v2.11
    container_name: traefik
    restart: always
    network_mode: "service:boringtun"
    depends_on:
      - boringtun
    command:
      # - "--log.level=DEBUG"
      - "--providers.docker"
      - "--entrypoints.web.address=:80"
      - "--entryPoints.web.proxyProtocol.trustedIPs=10.13.13.1"
      - "--entrypoints.websecure.address=:443"
      - "--entryPoints.websecure.proxyProtocol.trustedIPs=10.13.13.1"
      - "--entrypoints.web.http.redirections.entrypoint.to=websecure"
      - "--entrypoints.web.http.redirections.entrypoint.scheme=https"
      - "--entrypoints.web.http.redirections.entrypoint.priority=100"
      # Timeouts
      - "--entryPoints.websecure.transport.respondingTimeouts.readTimeout=0"
      - "--entryPoints.websecure.transport.respondingTimeouts.writeTimeout=0"
      - "--entryPoints.websecure.transport.respondingTimeouts.idleTimeout=0"
      - "--providers.docker.exposedByDefault=false"
      - "--providers.docker.network=ingress"
      - "--certificatesresolvers.mytlschallenge.acme.tlschallenge=true"
      - "--certificatesresolvers.mytlschallenge.acme.email=youremail@example.com"
      - "--certificatesresolvers.mytlschallenge.acme.storage=/letsencrypt/acme.json"
      - "--serversTransport.forwardingTimeouts.dialTimeout=3m"
      # - "--api.insecure=true"
      # - "--certificatesresolvers.mytlschallenge.acme.caserver=https://acme-staging-v02.api.letsencrypt.org/directory"
    environment:
      - TZ=America/New_York
    volumes:
      - ./volumes/le-data/acme.json:/letsencrypt/acme.json
      - /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock

I only use boringtun on this side because I think synology doesn't or didn't have the kernel module for wireguard and using the userspace mode made it work for me, otherwise you could probably just use the regular wireguard container. Also note that my docker network for communicating between traefik and stuff I'm exposing is ingress, which is specified both on the boringtun container as well as passed to traefik as providers.docker.network, I think that's needed so that traefik can figure out the container IP of the containers you're exposing. I also haven't migrated to traefik v3 because I'm lazy.

Another note, there's an annoying condition where if you reboot, it may fail to attach the traefik container to wireguard because it linked via network mode to the old container. Just doing compose down and up fixes it by recreating all the containers. But other than that which I haven't encountered in a while it works really well. I'm not sure if that bug was fixed because I rarely reboot.

[–] stratself@lemdro.id 1 points 1 hour ago

Not exactly a tutorial, but I use SNI routing + TLS passthrough with Caddy-L4 (and previously Traefik), and wrote/collect some stuff about it over the years:

{
    layer4 {
        tcp/:443 {
            tcp/127.0.0.1:538
        }
    }
}
[–] fightforlife@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Isn't this similar to rathole or frp?

[–] fhoekstra@feddit.nl 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Very similar.

The main differences are that those projects are highly configurable and can do a lot of things, while towonel is simpler: opinionated/streamlined for use as a shared Cloudflare tunnel alternative. I also think towonel may be the only one to use QUIC for the tunnel, just like Cloudflare.

Besides that, towonel is very new and still in alpha. Rathole does not seem to be actively developed anymore, which can be a good or bad thing.

[–] Decronym@lemmy.decronym.xyz 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 32 minutes ago)

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

Fewer Letters More Letters
IP Internet Protocol
LXC Linux Containers
NAS Network-Attached Storage
NAT Network Address Translation
NUC Next Unit of Computing brand of Intel small computers
SSL Secure Sockets Layer, for transparent encryption
TCP Transmission Control Protocol, most often over IP
TLS Transport Layer Security, supersedes SSL
VPS Virtual Private Server (opposed to shared hosting)

[Thread #304 for this comm, first seen 21st May 2026, 13:30] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

[–] EarMaster@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Is the agent only available as a docker image? I quite like the option to run Cloudflare tunnels as a local service (e.g. in LXCs).

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Very cool. I personally use a double wireguard network: a wireguard vpn at home for all my services, and then since my home network is behind a double NAT and impossible to access publicly, I use a second wireguard tunnel to a VPS, to forward traffic to my internal wireguard network. The only thing the VPS can see is encrypted wireguard packets.

Edit: it seems like this service is more for public or shared services (like a public blog), rather than private personal services, so wireguard is less of an option

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Uh. Blog is down. All I get is an 404 for the link in the Mastodon post.

Edit: Here's a link that works: https://github.com/eleboucher/towonel

[–] INeedMana@piefed.zip 3 points 6 hours ago

Oh, nice find. I'm saving that