mirror of
https://github.com/juanfont/headscale.git
synced 2026-01-11 20:00:28 +01:00
Question: On the reason for not encouraging container and reverse proxy usage #665
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @LumenYoung on GitHub (Mar 10, 2024).
Could someone explain why the deployment of headscale with container and reverse proxy is not encouraged? Any difficulty or negative implication from that practice?
Sorry to use the bug report tag since I couldn't find appropriate tag for this issue. I searched through the issues but there is no answer to this. I believe this question is very common for people read REDEME, by making it a public issue for people to search is going to save many explanation and confusions. Thanks for this great project BTW!
@juanfont commented on GitHub (Mar 10, 2024):
Because it adds an extra layer of complexity and more failure modes to the system.
For instance, many default configurations of reverse proxies do not handle WebSockets - which is an absolute requirement for Headscale. Or in the case of containers, you really have to have several mount points to get Headscale working.
Less tech saavvy users then have the impression that Headscale is broken, rather than their's setup. Which is why we ended having dedicated channels in Discord to support reverse proxies and docker.
For users familiar with containers and reverse proxies, there is nothing particularly difficult on getting Headscale working :)
@LumenYoung commented on GitHub (Mar 10, 2024):
Thanks for the prompt reply~ Now I can deploy in docker without double :)
@HWiese1980 commented on GitHub (Sep 17, 2024):
I got to say, I find the wording a bit... blunt. I understand that you do not support it officially. Not encouraging it however may lead to some people maybe not even trying, which might keep them from figuring stuff out others haven't yet. Maybe even bugs. After all, except for production use, stuff like this is practically made to tinker with. I would recommend removing at least the "not encouraging" point, or at least emphasize not encouraging it particularly in production.
My two cents.