vividspecter@lemm.eetoNews@lemmy.world•Trump turns on Time after new cover shows Musk sitting behind his Resolute desk
1·
5 hours agoUnfortunately, adhering to traditionalism means inflating the ego yet further of dictators. I’d rather the whole thing went away altogether (that would have been a real statement if they’d just left the thing blank).
There’s likely a firewall on the system that hosts the docker services, and docker’s default bridge rules bypass it when publishing a port. And since the docker rules are prioritised, it can be quite difficult to override them in a reliable way. I personally wish that the default rules would just open a rule to the host, but there might be some complexity that I’m missing that makes that challenging.
I personally use host networking to avoid the whole mess, but be aware you’ll have to change the internal ports for a bunch of services most likely, and that’s not always well-documented. And using the container name as the host name won’t work when referencing other containers, you’ll have to use e.g. localhost:<port number> even inside the network.
You can do the bind to localhost thing that others have mentioned, as long as the reverse proxy itself is inside the docker network (likely there are workarounds if not).