thanks to an idea from nostr:npub10npj3gydmv40m70ehemmal6vsdyfl7tewgvz043g54p0x23y0s8qzztl5h i was able to get my node up again.

basic idea is to have `persistentKeepalive = 25;` wireguard option from my home node to my VPS. then I ip forward the lightning port from my VPS to my home node over wireguard.

my zaps and lightning node should be working again. please test!

03f3c108ccd536b8526841f0a5c58212bb9e6584a1eb493080e7c1cc34f82dad71@ln.damus.io:9735

nostr:note1f0a9h0jcl6up920pllda6qvtmesaapuxlq80mw9cdvdmt9d39kasq3xj4t

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

i heard yall like noise protocol over noise protocol

That’s great news Fren 🌞

well that looks like a pretty standard setup

I hate it, buying a dedicated static ip for my house

we all do.

but be possitive. if you buy your vps without KYC it has much better privacy parameters

sweeden DCs, no kyc. Kindof expensive, but they don't ask qestions

https://njal.la/

Glad you were able to get it up, it’s a frustration that has plagued mankind for millennia.

I love this setup:

systemd-networkd: routing all traffic over WireGuard (section)

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/WireGuard

(this knowledge is cross-linux, not just archlinux, btw ^^)

By leveraging it's built in routing, you don't have to set up nearly as many iptables to open up ports.

I do something like that but only for some traffic (like torrents) using fwmarks and cgroups

glad you resolved it

Why not have your Lightning node on Tor?

i have the same question

Not a fan of tor, overly complicated. I don’t have any need for any of its features. It just adds latency.

How is Tor overly complicated? It's easier to route your node through Tor than route it through some VPS.

the protocol is complicated

No, it's not 🤷‍♂

when there is packets flowing you dont need keepalive tho

The tunnel needs to stay open through cgnat so you definitely need it. Can’t assume packets are always flowing

👏👏 Cloud Fodder👏