headscale

Pros of Tailscale

• Official implementation with robust support and documentation
• More feature-rich and mature, with advanced networking capabilities
• Seamless integration with major cloud providers and identity systems

Cons of Tailscale

• Closed-source control server, limiting self-hosting options
• Requires paid plans for certain features and larger deployments
• Less flexibility for customization and modification

Code Comparison

Tailscale (Go):

func (c *Conn) Close() error {
    c.mu.Lock()
    defer c.mu.Unlock()
    if c.closed {
        return nil
    }
    c.closed = true
    return c.pconn.Close()
}

Headscale (Go):

func (s *Server) Close() error {
    s.mu.Lock()
    defer s.mu.Unlock()
    if s.closed {
        return nil
    }
    s.closed = true
    return s.listener.Close()
}

Both projects use similar patterns for closing connections, with mutex locks to ensure thread safety. The main difference lies in the specific components being closed (pconn vs. listener).

Headscale aims to provide an open-source, self-hosted alternative to Tailscale's control server. It offers greater control and customization but may lack some advanced features and polish of the official Tailscale implementation. Headscale is suitable for users prioritizing self-hosting and open-source solutions, while Tailscale is ideal for those seeking a more comprehensive, fully-supported networking solution.

Pros of Netmaker

• Supports multiple VPN protocols (WireGuard, OpenVPN, IPSec)
• Offers a user-friendly GUI for network management
• Provides advanced features like multi-cloud networking and split tunneling

Cons of Netmaker

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Requires additional infrastructure components (e.g., database)
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

Headscale (Go):

func (ns *Namespace) GetMachine(machineKey key.MachinePublic) (*Machine, error) {
    for _, machine := range ns.Machines {
        if machine.PublicKey.Equal(machineKey) {
            return machine, nil
        }
    }
    return nil, ErrMachineNotFound
}

Netmaker (Go):

func (network *Network) GetNode(macaddress string) (models.Node, error) {
    var node models.Node
    record := database.DB.Where("macaddress = ? AND network = ?", macaddress, network.NetID).First(&node)
    if errors.Is(record.Error, gorm.ErrRecordNotFound) {
        return models.Node{}, errors.New("node not found")
    }
    return node, record.Error
}

Both projects use Go and implement similar functionality for retrieving network nodes/machines. Headscale uses in-memory storage, while Netmaker relies on a database (GORM) for persistence.

Pros of Nebula

• Lightweight and efficient peer-to-peer VPN solution
• Built-in security features like encryption and certificate-based authentication
• Highly scalable, suitable for large networks

Cons of Nebula

• Steeper learning curve for setup and configuration
• Limited centralized management capabilities
• Requires manual configuration for each node

Code Comparison

Headscale (Go):

func (h *Headscale) RegisterMachine(ctx context.Context, key *machine.MachineKey) (*machine.Machine, error) {
    // Implementation details
}

Nebula (Go):

func (s *udpServer) ReadFromUDP(b []byte) (int, *net.UDPAddr, error) {
    // Implementation details
}

Both projects are written in Go, but they serve different purposes. Headscale is a control server for Tailscale, while Nebula is a complete VPN solution. The code snippets show different aspects of their functionality: Headscale focuses on machine registration, while Nebula handles UDP communication.

Headscale provides a centralized management solution for Tailscale networks, making it easier to administer and control access. Nebula, on the other hand, offers a more distributed approach with peer-to-peer connections, providing better scalability and performance in certain scenarios.

Choose Headscale for easier management and integration with Tailscale, or Nebula for a lightweight, scalable VPN solution with strong security features.

Pros of Netbird

• User-friendly web UI for easier management and configuration
• Built-in support for multiple platforms (Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android)
• Offers additional features like access control and activity logging

Cons of Netbird

• Closed-source control plane, limiting customization options
• Requires a centralized management server, potentially impacting privacy

Code Comparison

Headscale (Go):

func (s *Server) handleRegister(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    machineKey, err := key.NewMachinePublicKeyFromHex(r.Header.Get("Authorization"))
    if err != nil {
        http.Error(w, "Invalid machine key", http.StatusBadRequest)
        return
    }
    // ... (additional registration logic)
}

Netbird (Go):

func (s *Server) handlePeerRegistration(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    peerKey, err := wgtypes.ParseKey(r.Header.Get("X-Peer-Key"))
    if err != nil {
        http.Error(w, "Invalid peer key", http.StatusBadRequest)
        return
    }
    // ... (additional registration logic)
}

Both projects use Go and implement similar functionality for peer registration, but with different key handling approaches and naming conventions.

Pros of Netbird

• User-friendly web UI for easier management and configuration
• Built-in support for multiple platforms (Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android)
• Offers additional features like access control and activity logging

Cons of Netbird

• Closed-source control plane, limiting customization options
• Requires a centralized management server, potentially impacting privacy

Code Comparison

Headscale (Go):

func (s *Server) handleRegister(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    machineKey, err := key.NewMachinePublicKeyFromHex(r.Header.Get("Authorization"))
    if err != nil {
        http.Error(w, "Invalid machine key", http.StatusBadRequest)
        return
    }
    // ... (additional registration logic)
}

Netbird (Go):

func (s *Server) handlePeerRegistration(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    peerKey, err := wgtypes.ParseKey(r.Header.Get("X-Peer-Key"))
    if err != nil {
        http.Error(w, "Invalid peer key", http.StatusBadRequest)
        return
    }
    // ... (additional registration logic)
}

Both projects use Go and implement similar functionality for peer registration, but with different key handling approaches and naming conventions.

Pros of innernet

• Built on WireGuard, offering better performance and simpler setup
• Designed for self-hosted, private networks with a focus on security
• Provides a user-friendly CLI for managing the network

Cons of innernet

• Less flexible than Headscale for public-facing VPN scenarios
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Headscale
• May require more manual configuration for complex network setups

Code Comparison

innernet configuration example:

[server]
external_address = "example.com:51820"
listen_port = 51820
private_key = "YOUR_PRIVATE_KEY"

Headscale configuration example:

server_url: http://127.0.0.1:8080
listen_addr: 0.0.0.0:8080
private_key_path: /var/lib/headscale/private.key

Both projects aim to provide secure networking solutions, but they have different focuses. innernet is designed for private, self-hosted networks using WireGuard, while Headscale is a more flexible implementation of the Tailscale control server. The choice between them depends on specific use cases and network requirements.