dovholuknf

Sounds like I shouldn't be so hard on AI when it hallucinates things based on this data? :)

I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I didn't think you were tossing any shade for what it's worth. I was just arguing that to me, both are "app embedded". IMO, the fact that traffic relays or not to me is non-consequential, what's important is where the encryption starts and where it ends (and where authorization happens but that's also separate). If it starts the client and ends at the 'server' then it's fully e2ee -- it doesn't matter if traffic traverses only IP-based underlays or if it traverses over an overlay at that point.

I very much appreciate the "outsider" perspective though and thank you very much for sharing it. That perspective is impossible to obtain after you work on a project for long enough! :)

Cheers!

At this time OpenZiti still operates in relay pattern. All your traffic travels through an OpenZiti router. It's also a zero trust overlay so having an external server is important to make policy decisions about whether an identity is authorized to dial a service or not. OpenZiti also allows for bespoke pathing via OpenZiti routers so that path traversal over the overlay is also coordinated.

The project has been moving to supporting directly connecting to other identities but it hasn't been a priority yet.

The connections an OpenZiti identity makes to another OpenZiti identity are direct-over-OpenZiti (not direct over IP underlay) if that makes sense. I don't know if you'll ever be able to have two process communicate without that third 'arbiter' process (I'll call it). It might happen, but right now it seems less likely than the direct connect approach.

hope that helps. But you can definitely have an SDK app client connect to an SDK app "server" and be fully zero trust, fully app embedded, fully end to end encrypted, peer-to-peer (over the overlay) connections.

OpenZiti has numerous SDKs. If you are a developer and you can integrate an SDK into your application, it 100% is application-embedded. It is incorrect stating that it can't be app-embedded... (i am a maintainer on the project). Perhaps I just don't understand the response?

FINALLY. This is actually exciting to me... Mind you the linux ports (cygwin, msys2, git bash) are all great to have and I make sure one version or the other is always on my path but having MS maintain them (assuming they continue to do so) is great news

Tailscale and Wireguard are great. I'm an OpenZiti maintainer and I've written/spoken about application embedded zero trust for many, many years. Still it seems most devs don't think it's important for whatever reason... It'll make me happy if Tailscale is successful here and can spread the word out to get more devs interested in embedding the secure connectivity directly into the apps instead of relying on the classic underlay network and bolting on security. If that sort of thing interests you, you could check out OpenZiti. It's not Wireguard-based for better or for worse you can decide (if you do end up checking it out)

That's good to know. Can you point me to the peer relay code? I'd like to look at what and how it works. thanks!

Maintainer here. Yes. The routers and the controller will have a port that can accept mTLS traffic.

> "feeling like it's not a good fit for me, and indiehosters in general."

Maintainer here so I'm gonna be biased with this hot take, but I really don't agree with this particular sentiment.

I would turn it around instead and say that most indie hosters are maybe not looking for the levels of protection a zero trust overlay network provides. That is a believable reason for me why it might be perceived as not a good fit. If you're not looking for the sort of security that OpenZiti affords the operator, it will certainly feel less of a fit than a classic VPN-like solution. It also focuses on a different paradigm wrt connectivity centered around individual services. That does mean the learning curve is absolutely steeper because it's not "just IP" and all our years of ip-based-know-how are useful, but not to make the most of the system. While one can use IP/L3/L4 just fine with OpenZiti, it's certainly not trying to be an IP-based VPN (like many of the other solutions are). That also might lead to feeling like it's not a great fit.

For the people who want the sort of security OpenZiti provides, however. It really is an easy-to-use (my bias showing) solution that plenty of indie hosters use already. :)

Not trying to sound too defensive here (a little is ok, right?) but I also appreciate the comments and feedback, thank you!

OpenZiti maintainer here if anyone has any questions.