On 24.05.18 13:07, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Jan Bramkamp <cr...@rlwinm.de> wrote:
Did I understand correctly that both these ports are userspace
implementations and have a similar per packet overhead to OpenVPN and fastd?
Indeed they're userspace ports. Maybe down the line this will be
ported to the FreeBSD kernel like we have on Linux.
However, performance wise, even the userspace implementation seems to
have better performance than OpenVPN in my testing.
I tried wireguard-go on OpenBSD and FreeBSD. I want to use WireGuard as
replacement for OpenVPN point to point tunnels with dynamic routing
(OSPF, iBGP). Especially this requires the right interface flags for the
tun interface. So far wireguard-go on *BSD configures the tun interfaces
as multicast incapable, broadcast interface which confuses the OpenBSD
OSPF daemon completely and doesn't make any sense for a point to point
tunnel. I get that wireguard-go tries to fake point to multipoint
support that way. Is there a better solution than changing the hardwired
argument ioctl() in tun/tun_*bsd.go?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
