Re: Policy-based routing

[Bruno]

Hi Jason,

Thanks for your input. I agree with you.

But I could have the peers based on table routing and marking packets, 
were all the traffic (0.0.0.0/0) would be routed based on the prior 
conditions (tables and marking).


I'm doing one interface per peer right now, but I thought it could be 
possible to achieve the same results with just one interface.


Bruno



On 04/13/2018 11:09 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:

Hi Bruno,

You can't set multiple peers to use 0.0.0.0/0 at the same time on the
same interface. How would it be able to choose which peer to send
traffic to then? Instead, if you want some kind of redundancy or
bonding, you can try using multiple interfaces, and then use whatever
traditional routing or load balancing tools that you ordinarily would.

Jason


___
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

Re: Policy-based routing

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi Bruno,

You can't set multiple peers to use 0.0.0.0/0 at the same time on the
same interface. How would it be able to choose which peer to send
traffic to then? Instead, if you want some kind of redundancy or
bonding, you can try using multiple interfaces, and then use whatever
traditional routing or load balancing tools that you ordinarily would.

Jason
___
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

Re: Policy-based routing

[Matthias Urlichs]

Hi,
> Is it possible to achieve that with wireguard? 

You need to set up multiple wireguard interfaces (on different ports of
course).

Then you can use traditional Linux routing techniques.

-- 
-- Matthias Urlichs

___
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard