synology-wireguard VS docker-transmission-openvpn

Try here: https://github.com/runfalk/synology-wireguard

It seems like your model is based out of the v1000 platform. See if this can help: https://github.com/runfalk/synology-wireguard/issues/61

Anyone knows how to do this. I installed runfalk/synology-wireguard with complied .spk file, I managed setup macOS client and hand shake is successful. I added /etc/sysctl.conf with net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 as stated in this. But no success, the Synology is reachable via wireguard tunnel but not internet,

But you could try this, if your NAS is supported: https://github.com/runfalk/synology-wireguard

not native but this has worked well for me for creating a server endpoint

I think you’re in a different bubble. If no one used vpn for torrents why is one of the top docker images for transmission one to support vpns? No ones spending money on a seed box that’s just casually torrenting.

https://github.com/haugene/docker-transmission-openvpn

For torrent and open VPN this https://github.com/haugene/docker-transmission-openvpn is a great option if you can run docker.

I use haugene/transmission-openvpn to safely obtain all my Linux isos

Link to github - https://github.com/haugene/docker-transmission-openvpn

I would try the absolute path of the script and see if that does it for you. I'm running transmission on docker using haugene/docker-transmission-openvpn and that's the absolute path within the container, but YMMV if you're running the program somewhere/somehow else.

I haven’t used GlueTUN so can’t help unfortunately but I do use this one - https://github.com/haugene/docker-transmission-openvpn and it seems easier and safer (the container stops if the VPN is down)