
Show HN: On-Demand Secure Private Networks – Documentation - NetStrikeForce
https://wormhole.network/docs/
======
chrismeller
I'm curious how you would compare yourselves to someone in the same market;
for example, ZeroTier [1].

[1]: [https://www.zerotier.com/](https://www.zerotier.com/)

~~~
NetStrikeForce
ZeroTier are awesome and an inspiration for us.

They built their own technology, as opposed to us (we use SoftEther[1]) and it
is very clever how they only use the servers as a sort of "meeting point" when
possible.

I think however that both companies focus on different markets. We focus on
small teams and MSP-like companies, because other targets don't seem ripe
enough for our marketing power (i.e. money available to get into some
markets).

I'm not fully sure about their focus though. At some point I thought they were
after the enterprise, now I'm not so sure.

There are so many applications for our products that it's difficult to choose
one, too (Docker multi-host networking, per-application networks, ...)

[1]: [https://softether.org](https://softether.org)

------
DanielDent
"100.64.0.0/24" \- I'm pretty sure you meant /16 (or even /10). Unless you
only plan on having ~250 customers.

Interesting choice of IP range. It's reserved for carrier NAT. While I can see
benefits to the choice, it could also make the service unusable for some of
the customers that would most benefit from your service.

~~~
NetStrikeForce
Hi,

Thanks for your comment!

We really meant /24 :-) because this is not shared among networks. As we are
targeting small/medium shops we don't need to have a full /16 or /10 for each
network they create.

By using the IP space reserved for carrier grade NAT we're aiming to avoid any
overlapping with RFC1918 networks in as many cases as possible. We've found
that most of our prospective customers are in RFC1918 space, which was
expected.

On the other hand, providing an option to configure your own DHCP settings is
on the roadmap - in the meanwhile we're happy to accommodate any needs by
manually changing the settings under request or even completely disabling
DHCP. The network is layer 2, so you can do whatever you want with your layer
3 settings :-)

Hope our choice makes a bit more sense now, but we would definitely want to
hear more detail about your concerns with the chosen IP space.

Thanks!

------
kfriede
Awesome, just signed up. I'd love to see more information on the security
model for communication between endpoints (e.g. where does traffic get
encrypted at, how are keys generated/shared, etc).

Also, the guides to install could use some work. Took me some poking around to
figure it out for OS X. A HomeBrew script to install it would be cool.

~~~
NetStrikeForce
Yay! Thanks for your feedback and for giving us a shot!

The OS X guide is unfortunately not done yet, but the HomeBrew suggestion
sounds like a really good idea. We will also work on improving guidance on our
security model.

Thank you!!

------
NetStrikeForce
Hi HN!

We've shared our project before and got really useful feedback from the
community (and a few users!). We've been now working on some of the most
common feedback points:

\- Documentation: This is what I'm linking now from here. Much better
documentation than before, but still work in progress!

\- Pricing: Now the pricing is shown on the project's landing page[1] due to
popular demand.

I will appreciate any feedback you could give us! :-)

[1][https://wormhole.network](https://wormhole.network)

~~~
freethrow
This project confuses me greatly. How is it better than, for example, perfect
privacy?

~~~
flagelate
Same question. I don't get it, even after reading the FAQ...

~~~
NetStrikeForce
Following on my answer to freethrow (parent comment), I've updated our FAQs:

[https://wormhole.network/docs/faq.html](https://wormhole.network/docs/faq.html)

I'm replying here so you have visibility too :)

