search

Tunnelsats / tunnelsats

Tunnel⚡Sats: Pre-configured VPN for Lightning Nodes
https://tunnelsats.github.io/tunnelsats/
MIT License
34 stars 9 forks source link

ip leakage for lightningd in non-docker setup fixed #3

Closed ziggie1984 closed 2 years ago

ziggie1984 commented 2 years ago

Fixes #1 and improves overall install|uninstall routines for all interfaces

openoms commented 2 years ago

The setupv2.sh from here works well from here, no leakage on setup now.

Found this comment confusing:

 please make sure the implementation runs on port 9735?

as the default Tor port for CLN (9736 on the raspiblitz) has no interference with the clearnet port.

blckbx commented 2 years ago

The setupv2.sh from here works well from here, no leakage on setup now.

Found this comment confusing:

 please make sure the implementation runs on port 9735?

as the default Tor port for CLN (9736 on the raspiblitz) has no interference with the clearnet port.

For CLN to work we need to remap ports on setups because we explicitly tunnel port 9735. Therefore we only support one LN implementation at a time. Do you see potential conflicts with this?

openoms commented 2 years ago

For CLN to work we need to remap ports on setups because we explicitly tunnel port 9735. Therefore we only support one LN implementation at a time. Do you see potential conflicts with this?

There is no problem, you can configure multiple binds. See my default CLN example:

from the config:

# Tor settings
proxy=127.0.0.1:9050
bind-addr=127.0.0.1:9736
addr=statictor:127.0.0.1:9051/torport=9736
#always-use-proxy=true

# Tunnelsats settings
bind-addr=0.0.0.0:9735
announce-addr=VPN_IP:VPN_PORT
always-use-proxy=false

From getinfo:

   "address": [
      {
         "type": "ipv4",
         "address": "VPN_IP",
         "port": VPN_PORT
      },
      {
         "type": "torv3",
         "address": "xxxxxxxxxxxx.onion",
         "port": 9736
      }
   ],
   "binding": [
      {
         "type": "ipv4",
         "address": "127.0.0.1",
         "port": 9736
      },
      {
         "type": "ipv4",
         "address": "0.0.0.0",
         "port": 9735
      }
   ],
   "version": "v0.11.2",
   "blockheight": 743719,
   "network": "bitcoin",
blckbx commented 2 years ago

There is no problem, you can configure multiple binds.

Just thinking through all possible cases. If running RaspiBlitz with both LND and CLN, could we run into a problem trying to bind both to port 9735?

ziggie1984 commented 2 years ago

yes but pretty sure the os does not allow both services to bind on the same port, so it will come obvious to the user that something is not right

openoms commented 2 years ago

There is no problem, you can configure multiple binds.

Just thinking through all possible cases. If running RaspiBlitz with both LND and CLN, could we run into a problem trying to bind both to port 9735?

Yes, for clearnet it would be an issue and also for binding on the localhost to the same for Tor addresses. The Hidden Address port can be the same on different addresses of course. You should say that running both nodes on clearnet with Tunnelsats is not supported until a custom port is implemented.

ziggie1984 commented 2 years ago

There is no problem, you can configure multiple binds.

Just thinking through all possible cases. If running RaspiBlitz with both LND and CLN, could we run into a problem trying to bind both to port 9735?

Yes, for clearnet it would be an issue and also for binding on the localhost to the same for Tor addresses. The Hidden Address port can be the same on different addresses of course. You should say that running both nodes on clearnet with Tunnelsats is not supported until a custom port is implemented.

still undecided whether we will include it in the script, but its mentioned in the FAQ now