Linux Domain Controller

Sparkum

Adjusted.

coliver

@coliver

Adjusted.

hosts allow is still going to block anything coming from the public internet. Unless you have a VPN setup between your Samba server and the workstation then you will need to change that to accept the public IP address of the workstation.

Sparkum

@coliver

Oh thats a shame, my ISP doesnt allow dedicated IP's on home networks.

guess I'll have to stay on top of this one.

new ip.JPG

I wonder if I can use one of cloudflare's ip updaters in conjunction with this?

scottalanmiller

That's where a VPN like Pertino is handy.

Dashrender

Did I miss the part where you tried to actually join the SAMBA server to the domain to make it a DC?

As Scott mentioned you'll want to do this over a VPN like Pertino, you definitely don't want to open ports 135, etc to the world on both sides (at C@C and at home) to make this work, which you'd be required to do if you don't use VPN.

Sparkum

@Dashrender

Haha its funny I actually came on here to say "At what point am I prompted to join this to the domain" seemed like all I was doing was making a file share so far.

So to use Pertino for example I would need the VPN on every machine I assume?

I guess my initial plan here is mail server (or SMTP relay even) in the cloud, backup DC (this) in the cloud, dc at home then all my computers and servers, so I would need everything that I want to have access to the cloud DC to have the VPN correct?

Anyone know of any free options for 10-15 computers? (even under 10)

Thanks

scottalanmiller

@Sparkum said:

So to use Pertino for example I would need the VPN on every machine I assume?

Pertino is a full matrix VPN. So every machine that needs to talk to any other machine needs to be on it. This is a limitation, to be sure, compared to site to site VPNs, but it is also its power. It's also known as "software defined networking" and it turns your machines hosted here and there, your independent cloud nodes, your laptops, your desktops, no matter where they are into a single LAN that can all see each other, all the time.

NTG uses Pertino to turn our people around the world and our datacenters all over the world (US, Netherlands and Canada) into a single network. It's like we are all sitting in the same room, even when we are traveling.

scottalanmiller

@Sparkum said:

Anyone know of any free options for 10-15 computers? (even under 10)

You'd have to build your own using a tool like OpenVPN. We've done that before. Can work well but gets cumbersome.

Sparkum

@scottalanmiller

For sure I see the benefit don't get me wrong but I'm trying to cut fees with this not add them (again just a simple homelab wanting to expand knowledge and reach)

And I was thinking OpenVPN last night so I'll keep looking down that route.
Thanks.

I'll try to get the VPN going this weekend and then hopefully start tackling the DC again Monday/Tuesday.

OpenVPN has more overhead, It's great for Roadwarior but I've never used it for site-site connections.

scottalanmiller

@thecreativeone91 said:

OpenVPN has more overhead, It's great for Roadwarior but I've never used it for site-site connections.

Same here. We used it for hub and spoke designs which are typically better for AD situations. He's looking at cloud servers which are not sites, but end points. So OpenVPN works really well.

IPSec is definitely lower overhead when available.

Tinc is a pretty neat mesh VPN which has less overhead.
You really want all static IPs for it though.

http://www.tinc-vpn.org/

scottalanmiller

@thecreativeone91 said:

Tinc is a pretty neat mesh VPN which has less overhead.
You really want all static IPs for it though.

http://www.tinc-vpn.org/

You always need that somewhere. Pertino handles it by actually being an elaborate, hosted hub and spoke system that mimics a full mesh. You can do the same thing with OpenVPN or even IPSec, just takes a lot of work.

JaredBusch

@scottalanmiller said:

IPSec is definitely lower overhead when available.

IPSEC is lower overhead because it is has been offloaded in most cases.

If you are not offloading the encryption in a router, the overhead between the two is not all that different.

I use OpenVPN as the site-to-site method to connect the ERL at most clients. IPSEC always seems to have issues. For most SMB this is good enough as they will never saturate the OpenVPN link.

scottalanmiller

Yes, IPSec is such a pain to deal with. We used to have a huge site to site mesh using Netgear VPN hardware. That was well over a decade ago, though.

Now I feel old.

JaredBusch

For the record, an Ubiquiti EdgeMax Lite will cap out an OpenVPN connection at about 10-14mbps because it will take up all the processor.

So unless you are going to push more than that, there is just no reason to worry about it.

Sparkum

Not talking much traffic at all.

Honestly might not even put all devices on it.

Going to still run local DC, so I'm thinking maybe three cloudatcost, my main desktop, and local DC all on VPN

So maybe 5, might push it to one or two more computers but nothing really intensive.

Would/Should I be able to host my dc on CentOS7 as well as OpenVPN? Or would that require two? (Dev1)

Thanks

scottalanmiller

Yes, you can put OpenVPN aggregator on the same VM as your DC, that's no problem.

Sparkum

@scottalanmiller

This is more so what I meant.

Not typically in the 80's but it's usually floating around the 60's

(Just did a restart so I'm assuming thats why its spiking)

Edit: However; its definately not dropping from 87% now

Sparkum

Just doing a quick google search found this how to

https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-setup-and-configure-an-openvpn-server-on-centos-7

I assume for the most part this should be fine minus not using google'd DNS records