RRD
That’s a name I haven’t heard in a minute!
I see the rrdtool gallery is still up and my graph is still in there 🤭. (No it’s not the Christmas graph, that one’s insane.)
I’m using Influx nowadays but maybe I should revisit good old rrdtool for old times’ sake.
OK, Apple. How do I use passkeys created on iOS for accessing Apple services, on a Linux laptop?
What do you mean, which. All of them have this problem. You can’t force any platform owner to use your favorite credential storage when they decide they don’t want to. All of them will tell you “for my services you use my storage, period”.
You’re picking what vendor you want, not picking unique vendors for every unique passkey.
I don’t get to pick anything, in fact. Most often you’re told “that’s how it is, that’s where the passkey goes” and there’s nothing you can do about it.
It sounds like you just don’t like or want hardware-locked/TPM passkeys. If you generate that type of passkey, then no you can’t do much of that.
Again, _I_ typically don’t get to make that choice, it’s being made for me. And that’s a problem.
It sounds like your concern is, I have a credential manager and want to migrate to a new credential manager.
No. My concern is that I want to choose my own credential manager, and I want it to work with any passkey usage out there. And that’s impossible.
You’re not wrong to have that feeling.
Where is the passkey saved? Can I take it out and back it up? Can I use it on another device, running a completely different OS? If I lose this device the passkey is on, what happens?
The answers to most of these is negative.
There are already dozens of hardware and software passkey vendors. It’s honestly amazing how little lock-in there is.
If my passkeys are spread across dozens of vendors I wouldn’t call that good, first of all, it’s just a headache.
Secondly, just because there’s many of them doesn’t mean there’s no lock-in. Can I get my passkeys out? Can I migrate them freely between any vendors? Can I take backups for myself from all the vendors? Can I restore the backups into each vendor? Can I replace those vendors with a self-hosted solution?
Maybe you’ll prefer more practical criticism then:
To put it simply, every passkey is locked into a large combination of factors: device + platform (OS) + app + the service being used. It is not trivial and often downright impossible to change any of these factors or to render them agnostic. This makes it complicated or impossible to backup passkeys or make them portable.
It’s fine for them to not be portable when they’re used on a work phone, running the company mandated OS, authentication app and passkey store, to login into a suite of apps that are also company-approved.
I do need portability and backup as an individual who wants to be able to login into multiple services across multiple apps running on multiple OS on multiple devices. But I can’t, because the big tech players (Microsoft/Google/Apple etc.) are actively trying to capture passkeys into their platforms and make it hard to get out in any practical way.
With passwords and TOTP I can run something that will sync them across devices and fill them in into any app in a unified manner (or use copy & paste if all else fails). With passkeys I can’t.
Need to edit the proxy host for Jellyfin in NPM (advanced tab) and send the X-Forwaded-For header to it.
proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $remote_addr;
And also in Jellyfin settings you have to set the IP that it sees the reverse proxy coming from as a “known proxy”, so it knows it can trust that header when it comes from that IP.
https://jellyfin.org/docs/general/post-install/networking/reverse-proxy/#forwarded-for-headers
Yeah that’s because most people are under the impression that Docker only allocates 172. addresses for its bridge network. I was under that impression too.
Turns out it also allocates 192.168 addresses.
Does it overlap my LAN? Is 192.168.65.X not distinguishable from my defined subnets with a 24-bit mask, now that I know where they’re coming from?
The problem is that the default says 192.168.0.0/16, so it can also generate overlapping addresses. The fact it generated a 192.168.65.x address instead of an 192.168.1.x address was pure luck.
Somehow all of the tutorials I’ve found in the past months to set up services behind a reverse proxy never mentioned any of these gotchas with Docker and networks.
The common-sense assumption is that you will adjust your Docker daemon settings so that you prevent overlap with your LAN. (Also, I expect lots of tutorials aren’t that high quality to begin with.)
If you edit daemon.json like I explained and explicitly only put 172. ranges in there you should be safe from overlaps in the future.
Yep, you’ll have to fix that by telling your proxy to put the client IP in a header that the target app can recognize and use:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Headers/X-Forwarded-For
But, also, it’s a good idea to have Docker network ranges that don’t overlap your LAN. That would make me uncomfortable too.
You can also look into using IPv4 link-local addresses for Docker bridges (169.254.). Here’s an explanation:
https://github.com/11notes/RTFM/blob/master/linux/container/docker/daemon.md#networking
That frees you from accidental overlaps with pretty much everything else, but it comes with its own gotcha: link-local isn’t routable. This can come back to bite you if you have an app that relies on announcing a public UDP ip:port to a peer and announces the link-local IP. When a peer tries to connect back, it won’t work. So you have to either tweak the app’s config to make sure you announce a non-169.254. IP, or put the app container on a bridge/macvlan network so it auto-detects and announces a routable IP. There’s all kinds of apps that can be affected by this kind of peer-to-peer behavior (file transfer apps, games, VoIP apps etc.)
But TBH I’ve been using link-local ranges for a while now and only got bitten once (Deluge).
Hope you saw my other comment. Docker now also makes 192.168. networks in addition to 172. I’ve explained how to edit your daemon.json to stop it from doing that.
I think I’ve figured it out. Apparently now Docker also adds an 192.168. range on top of 172. ranges for its bridge networks:
https://docs.docker.com/engine/network/#automatic-subnet-allocation
Copy that example to your /etc/docker/daemon.json on all your docker machines, without the 192.168 line, and restart docker, and the 192.168.65. addresses will go away.
(Don’t forget to remove the trailing comma on the last address line.)
Mind you, this won’t solve anything, just remove some potential conflicts with your LAN. You will still see clients appearing to come from bogus addresses, except they’ll be in 172. ranges now.
Well I’ll be damned, there’s a 192.168. tucked away at the end of the 172. ranges:
https://docs.docker.com/engine/network/#automatic-subnet-allocation
{
"default-address-pools": [
{ "base": "172.17.0.0/16", "size": 16 },
{ "base": "172.18.0.0/16", "size": 16 },
{ "base": "172.19.0.0/16", "size": 16 },
{ "base": "172.20.0.0/14", "size": 16 },
{ "base": "172.24.0.0/14", "size": 16 },
{ "base": "172.28.0.0/14", "size": 16 },
{ "base": "192.168.0.0/16", "size": 20 }
]
}
seems to have identified this as some NAT setting built in to Docker
TBH I also thought about it being the default range used by Docker for its bridge networks, but I was under the impression it uses 172. ranges by default. The official example on their site says it uses 172.30.0.0/16 and 172.31.0.0/16. Also I have an unmodified docker running on one of my machines and it allocated 172.18.0.0/16 for a bridge network.
You can try to docker network create a bridge network and see what range it gets, you’ll see if it gets a 172. or a 168..
BTW I hope you’re looking at the docker on the reverse proxy machine, not on the jellyfin machine.
Is it?! I always thought that Docker uses 172.16.0.0/16 by default for its networks. Did that get changed at some point?
Just to understand better:
If all of the above is correct I would look at the network interfaces that are up on the mini-PC and the NAS, as well as inside the containers of the proxy and of Jellyfin, and see if there isn’t a 192.168.65.1 up on there somewhere for whatever reason.
You can also try making a manual request (wget, curl, nc) from the proxy container to Jellyfin and see what it shows up as.
May also want to see what’s the DNS situation in your LAN and on those machines. You mentioned “names” being used, how are those defined and resolved?
Last but not least are the containers you mentioned using docker bridge networks or ipvlan?
What is “the API”?
Good question. When you have multiple implementations of an API, the API (the authoritative version) is what gives the reference spec that all other apps must follow.
If the authoritative version will be fully implemented only by the closed backend and in the closed apps, it will cripple the FOSS backend and apps.
This is a common tactic used by companies that want to sideline the FOSS options and slowly make them irrelevant.
Yes, today all apps talk to both Bitwarden and Vaultwarden the same way. Be on the lookout in case that changes.
If there are two version of Bitwarden backend (closed and FOSS), and the closed one changes its API, and the closed Bitwarden apps also switch to the closed API, then what value does the FOSS API have anymore?
What’s a good smart plug to use?
I assume it’s a thing you place between the machine’s power cable and the wall and can be queried over WiFi?