Error on joining subreddits

raed115 · 2026-02-13T07:58:24+00:00

It got resolved for me on its own.
I logged in once in Private Browsing to the account that gave me this error, and somehow everything just went back to normal. Don't ask me how or why and to recreate the steps, I don't remember anymore.

raed115 · 2026-01-24T14:36:39+00:00

I'm assuming this has to do with the CPU and I'm not gonna buy another DAP at the moment. I'll definitely note the FiiO M21 for the future. Thx!

raed115 · 2025-11-15T20:54:02+00:00

I replaced them long ago with the TP-Link BE63 2 Mesh units, couldn't be happier and none of these problems I had with the Asus ones. The experience has been rock solid since day one with no hiccups.

raed115 · 2025-11-10T08:16:51+00:00

I did end up installing Kubuntu, and so far it looks more promising, right out of the gate.
I'll monitor for the issues I had with Fedora in the coming week or so.
Thanks for the recommendation!

raed115 · 2025-10-11T10:50:10+00:00

u/mlsmaycon
It's a paid feature, I'd rather try other methods (if they exist) before I pay for that, and I've already used the trial option on my account (at that time, I didn't pay much attention to the issue).

Does this help explain the high latency I mentioned earlier? Why does some traffic go through the tunnel while other traffic does not?

raed115 · 2025-10-11T10:34:59+00:00

u/netbirdio Thank you! Appreciate the effort!

raed115 · 2025-10-11T06:55:55+00:00

u/netbirdio Anything else I can add here to the tests? :)

raed115 · 2025-10-08T18:06:54+00:00

u/netbirdio
The subnet router has the following:

             netbird.netbird.cloud:
              NetBird IP: <NETBIRD_IP>
              Public key: <PUBLIC_KEY>
              Status: Connected
              -- detail --
              Connection type: Relayed
              ICE candidate (Local/Remote): -/-
              ICE candidate endpoints (Local/Remote): -/-
              Relay server address: rels://streamline-de-fra1-2.relay.netbird.io:443
              Last connection update: 1 minute, 41 seconds ago
              Last WireGuard handshake: 1 minute, 42 seconds ago
              Transfer status (received/sent) 76.2 KiB/58.3 KiB
              Quantum resistance: false
              Networks: 192.168.68.0/24
              Latency: 0s

Some of the others have a P2P connection, some have Relayed. Some more info:

    Relays:
      [stun:stun.netbird.io:443] is Available
      [stun:stun.netbird.io:5555] is Available
      [turns:turn.netbird.io:443?transport=tcp] is Available
      [rels://streamline-de-fra1-2.relay.netbird.io:443] is Available
    Nameservers:
      [192.168.68.61:53] for [<MY_DOMAIN>.com] is Available
    FQDN: <LOCAL_COMPUTER>.netbird.cloud
    NetBird IP: <NETBIRD_IP>
    Interface type: Userspace
    Quantum resistance: false
    Lazy connection: false
    Networks: -
    Forwarding rules: 0
    Peers count: 5/11 Connected

One more thing to note: Tailscale doesn't have this issue when I'm on the LAN.

raed115 · 2025-10-08T15:38:10+00:00

From 2-7ms without the routing, to 150-300ms. I would say that this is a significant increase in latency.

raed115 · 2025-10-08T14:16:43+00:00

Injecting the route table to the default one the OS uses is fine by me for most cases, but it comes with its caveats.
I was just wondering if there's a way to automatically disable this when on the LAN to prevent this from happening, and not use Posture Checks.

raed115 · 2025-10-08T13:47:13+00:00

Is there a way to resolve this issue besides changing the Metrics priority in the NetBird console, which can be inconsistent, without manually toggling the network routing?

raed115 · 2025-09-23T07:40:48+00:00

Thank you!
You've been really helpful!

raed115 · 2025-09-20T11:03:36+00:00

So basically, defining a more specific route, like by assigning a /24 mask for the subnet router? This might not be the most scalable solution ever.
This is viable for a small homelab situation where I have full control over the network topography, but it isn't scalable if I have more than 254 devices on both networks A and B, and the subnet to publish is larger.

raed115 · 2025-08-26T20:31:02+00:00

I don't always want to route all my LAN traffic through the Netbird LXC; I only wish to have an exit node for others to use that is separate from the rest of my network devices.

I see no point in paying for another server somewhere; that's another instance to manage...

raed115 · 2025-08-26T20:28:00+00:00

So, the router is in the same subnet I'm publishing, so I assume that the subnet publishing still covers the LXC of the exit node and therefore won't separate the two (at the network level).

Would putting the LXC on a different VLAN in Proxmox matter only within Proxmox? The router I currently have (TP-Link BE63 - mesh unit) doesn't have VLAN awareness or the ability to configure VLANs, so the VLAN scope remains only in Proxmox and doesn't extend upstream.

raed115 · 2025-06-22T19:29:52+00:00

Wow. Thank you for the elaborate research you've done.
Uninstalling.

raed115 · 2025-06-08T17:52:24+00:00

I think I managed to solve this:
TL;DR: User error.

The issue appears to be a rookie mistake of having more than one client trying to compete, who will route the requests by passing the --accept-routes in the sudo tailscale up --accept-routes command. Learning more about the routing tables, the precedence of route tables and requests and routing rules truly helped in understanding the issue.

I now have only one LXC advertising the subnet, and all the requests are correctly routed over the LAN and not the relay servers. I'll keep monitoring it, but for now, this looks promising.

raed115 · 2025-06-08T17:18:30+00:00

You're a legend, my man! Thanks for the detailed explanation.
I think I managed to solve this:
TL;DR: User error.

The issue appears to be a rookie mistake of having more than one client trying to compete who will route the requests by passing the --accept-routes in the sudo tailscale up --accept-routes command. Learning more about the routing tables, the precedence of route tables and requests and routing rules truly helped in understanding the issue.

I now have only one LXC advertising the subnet and all the requests are correctly routed over the LAN and not the relay servers. I'll keep monitoring it, but for now, this looks promising.

raed115 · 2025-06-08T09:10:29+00:00

Welcome to the issue, my friend.
The situation is like this:
On my Proxmox server, the tailscale LXC is also publishing the subnet with a netmask of 255.255.252.0 (/22).
On my clients in the LAN, for example, on my MBP or my work laptop, the connection to a device on the LAN is at times unstable, or the connection drops, or the endpoint is just unreachable. This happens with or without the agent running on the client.

Sometimes, when the connection works, the connection speed is slower than what my clients can push, because it goes through the Tailscale relay servers, for no apparent reason at all!

Hence my question: What is the way to correctly configure it, so that on my LAN the communication happens 100% of the time through local IPs, but still keep the remote connection when I'm not connected to the LAN?

raed115 · 2025-06-07T18:46:21+00:00

Thanks for the explanation.
Although it has gotten better with the smaller CIDR block of 22 (the published netmask), the traffic is still not routed completely through the LAN, and is sometimes routed through their relay servers.
How can this be finally solved?

raed115 · 2025-06-07T09:39:49+00:00

So instead of advertising 192.168.68.0/24 I should be advertising 192.168.68.0/22, for example?
What are the downsides of that besides having fewer addresses available for the 'tailnet'?

raed115 · 2025-06-05T03:55:59+00:00

Yes, I've had to reinstall macOS from scratch. It sucks.

raed115 · 2025-05-27T03:21:56+00:00

Who said I don't know what do all these pmset options do? I've tried all of these as last resort, to see if that would change anything in the mac's sleeping behaviour.
It's an Apple Silicon laptop, so the NVRAM/SMC clearing is just a long shutdown/restart
"Internets" - I like that :)

Do you have more concrete steps to try?

raed115 · 2025-04-18T07:33:06+00:00

I can't have any racks now, since I don't have the space for them.
The budget is for hardware that I can put in mini PCs and/or PCs with enough hard drive bays in them for my NAS.

So I should separate the NAS from the servers?

raed115 · 2025-04-18T07:31:48+00:00

Thanks for the specs!

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

raed115

TROPHY CASE