> Very early versions of Tailscale tried to use it, It’s not enough though.
I know you’re not the author, but I think that type of background would have been an interesting/helpful addition to the blog post and have given it more grit/mileage. Personally I found the post to be link heavy and shallow. I read it wondering why you’re going through all this trouble, instead of understanding a clear problem and solution. A reader like I would be super interested in an explanation of the shortcomings of Apple’s framework and what product requirements or technical constraints make Tailscale’s bespoke approach necessary. I think it sets the stage better for a “we’re off the rails good thing Apple publishes the ifconfig sources, +1 for open source” type of message.
> A number of things in Apple’s APIs are 90% of what we need.
I know you’re not the author, but I think that type of background would have been an interesting/helpful addition to the blog post and have given it more grit/mileage. Personally I found the post to be link heavy and shallow. I read it wondering why you’re going through all this trouble, instead of understanding a clear problem and solution. A reader like I would be super interested in an explanation of the shortcomings of Apple’s framework and what product requirements or technical constraints make Tailscale’s bespoke approach necessary. I think it sets the stage better for a “we’re off the rails good thing Apple publishes the ifconfig sources, +1 for open source” type of message.
> A number of things in Apple’s APIs are 90% of what we need.
I know the feel.