If you port forwarded incoming UDP port 41641 to your DVR using the built-in Tailscale, it doesn't work.
You have to port forward it to the device running Channels DVR and use Tailscale on that device.
If two of your devices are on difficult networks, allowing connections to UDP port 41641 on one of them may help Tailscale make a peer-to-peer connection, rather than falling back to a relay.
I forwarded the ports per Tailscale. Turned off the builtin TailScale. Speed is way faster and supports multiple clients to connect.
Which ones?
I found forwarding UDP port 41641 to my Synology NAS running 4 Channels DVR servers in containers allows for direct connect from clients. They initially use the DERP relays to find my NAS behind a double NAT and then connect directly, as evidenced by running tailscale ping <client tailnetIP> from the Synology NAS.
Of course I'm running the Tailscale Synology Package on it.
TCP 443, UDP 41641, UDP 3478.
I have seen some just use 41641
I wouldn't use all those. Better to use Channels DVR remote access instead.
Works for me just port forwarding incoming UDP 41641.
I seem to recall you were tweaking Tailscale / Wireshark embedded. I'm on latest stable. I want to use Tailscale to protect my RDP to that server (Windows 10 Pro). Performance was not sufficient to stream > about 1.5M with both enabled, should I just use the "external" Tailscale on that box and not the Channels server internal one? It's a fairly stout box with an i7 and 16gig RAM, gigabit lan and FiOS.
I had to move away from internal Tailscale. It did not provide enough bandwidth for streams in my RV. Disabled on channels and Installed it on the server and all is fine.
Thx. Will try it.
The recent DVR release should have improved the performance of the embedded Tailscale on Windows setup.
When you experience performance issues, are you able to run tailscale status on the client device and see if the connection is direct or not?
If you have a direct connection, the performance will be almost identical to as if you were not using any VPN at all.
For more details:
Yeah I am getting direct connection at the location of interest, which is on a Spectrum 100Mb connection. The client device is a pretty wimpy i3 with (I think) 4G RAM though, so maybe that's the primary constraint on performance. I'll try both ways. But won't the external, which I want (to get to the admin web page securely), duplicate the function of the embedded? Just curious. No advantage to running both, right?
Thx for the advice.
That is no longer reliable for me.
I find I need to do a tailscale ping
You are correct. There is no advantage on running both. I find running the OS native Tailscale is better because it provides access to all of the services on the system, not just the DVR. We bundle Tailscale in the DVR to make it simpler for less experienced people who only will use Tailscale for accessing their DVR.
I am using the pretty basic tailscale between Channels at home on my Synergy NAS connected to the Internet via T-Mobile Home Internet and my Firestick Max in my trailer using Starlink.
It seems to work fine until the evening when it buffers pretty bad.
I suspect it is usage related but not sure it is outbound from home or inbound to my trailer. Both the T-Mobile Internet or the Starlink could be accused of issues with congestion when heavy streaming when people get home from work. I do have a good signal at both ends so is there anything else i can do to improve the buffering?
Maybe use your own wireless router? Other than that, I'm not too sure
Are you using the Tailscale setting in Channels? I have found using Tailscale on my server works best. It seems Tailscale is a bit slow inside channels. Also, I use Tailscale via Starlink in my RV and there is no buffering. Also at my daughter's house via T-Mobile. She did have bandwidth issues until they improved the cell site nearest her. I run original quality via both. That is usually only 5 to 7 Mbps on all except local channels. I try to us TVE for everything to keep the data needs modest.
However, I use fiber at my house which is 500 up/down. I suspect your T-Mobile is choking your outbound from your server. I would try some different locations for you T-Mobile router to see if you get improved transfer rates.
Yeah, my guess is the outbound connection at home. The T-Mobile 5g router is undoubtedly optimized for inbound not outbound and in the evenings it gets congested (my suspicion)
I could try running Tailscale on the synology rather than from within Channels.
I notice than when buffering happens, i stop and back up the show just a bit and it gets past the stop point. That leads me to think if i could increase a buffer size, it might be able to mitigate at least some of the issue.
Is tmobile home internet the only option where you live? Usually i only recommend that to people that literally have no other options...
No, but it does save me about $120 over Cox and is ok speedwise. It is also not limited like my broadband connection was. I am not a gamer and watch via DVR almost exclusively so don't even stream much. Fine in the house but pulling the content out while in the RV is an issue. I don't have a way to test the difference in carriers tho.
While they don't charge for data overages or have a cap, they will throttle your bandwidth and prioritize cell customers with higher rate plans.
Also, I can't recall if they are like Optimum: if you use their router/modem (which you basically have to do with TMo) it will also broadcast a wifi network (separate from your local LAN, but still using your bandwidth) for their cellular customers to use at will, without any real ability to disable.
You are correct. I do not use their wifi but have my own internal network. My Synology NAS is wired so i am not using wifi for that at all.
Thanks for bringing this up. I thought i had disabled the TM wifi but maybe not. Want it gone more for security than bandwidth degrading but worth checking into.