Should I run a VPN client side as well? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by GuardYaGrill@sh.itjust.works to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Kinda want to keep this short. My Asus WRT router running Merlin firmware is currently handling my VPN connections & routing.

There is some part of me thinking if my providers servers go down my router may fallback to WAN, should I run an additional VPN connection on the device/server itself just in case?

It’s been about a year with this setup however this potential issue has been irking me.

Edit: Kill-switch is disabled on the router’s tunnels as it appears to be bugged in two ways. 1) any manual DNS settings get disregarded network-wide 2) it kills all network connections and not just the devices affected.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 5 points 4 days ago

I only run my VPN client-side so that the rest of the traffic isn't affected.

[-] GuardYaGrill@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

Hm, in my current state I’ve configured my router to essentially route all bandwidth to the closest server my VPN provider offers. I utilize other tunnels for bypassing censorship and or torrenting.

So far the year has been solid, I think I’m going to keep chucking away down this path since it does reduce resources on my server.

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

I run a gluetun docker (actually two, one local and one through Singapore) clientside which is generally regarded as pretty damn bulletproof kill switch wise. The arr stack etc uses this network exclusively. This means I can use foxyproxy to switch my browser up on the fly, bind things to tun0/tun1 etc, and still have direct connections as needed, it's pretty slick.