On 20 December 2016 19:43:15 CET, "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
>wrote:
>> Right, but that means that even if multicast is added, a routing
>> protocol won't be terribly useful, since it can't tell wireguard
>which
>> subnets lives behind w
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Right, but that means that even if multicast is added, a routing
> protocol won't be terribly useful, since it can't tell wireguard which
> subnets lives behind which peers. What I would need is to be able to
> assign /32s (or IPv6 l
"Jason A. Donenfeld" writes:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Can wireguard handle routed traffic to an endpoint. I.e. if endpoint A
>> has address 10.0.0.1/32 and endpoint B has a route 'ip route add
>> 10.10.10.1/24 via 10.0.0.1 dev wg0', would the traffic go
Hi Dan,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Dan Lüdtke wrote:
> I see what you mean now. Don't see a real problem there despite ugliness, but
> let me think of a solution. May not be my highest priority right now, though.
Solutions:
0) Do nothing.
1) Make netifd deal with it.
2) Sort the endpoint
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Can wireguard handle routed traffic to an endpoint. I.e. if endpoint A
> has address 10.0.0.1/32 and endpoint B has a route 'ip route add
> 10.10.10.1/24 via 10.0.0.1 dev wg0', would the traffic go where it's
> supposed to?
The `via
"Jason A. Donenfeld" writes:
> Hi Toke,
>
> Right now, no, there's no multicast. But it wouldn't be that hard to
> add the ability to add the same allowed-ips entry to multiple peers,
> and have WireGuard duplicate the message to all of them.
The multicast destination address is known, so that s
Hi Toke,
Right now, no, there's no multicast. But it wouldn't be that hard to
add the ability to add the same allowed-ips entry to multiple peers,
and have WireGuard duplicate the message to all of them.
It's not complicated in theory, but I wonder if this would be
genuinely useful, and whether o
[Caution: Unfiltered thoughts and ideas, untested from mind to mail. WoT ahead.]
Hi Toke,
I am on the road so can't test right now. Can you elaborate on babel a bit?
Would you be able to use non-link-local multicast addresses? Let's call it
"routed multicast" for now.
Maybe related/similar cas
> On 20 Dec 2016, at 14:33, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Dan Lüdtke wrote:
>> New environment, build from latest sources this morning. Can't reproduce. I
>> can't see duplicate routes. Static routes were added via LuCI to represent a
>> typical user's approach.
Does Wireguard has a notion of multicast? I would like to eventually
replace my current VPN setup with wireguard. I currently run Tinc in
switch (layer 2) mode, and run the Babel routing protocol on top.
Babel announces itself via link-local multicast to everyone on the link.
Does this work with w
Hi Dan,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Dan Lüdtke wrote:
> New environment, build from latest sources this morning. Can't reproduce. I
> can't see duplicate routes. Static routes were added via LuCI to represent a
> typical user's approach.
>
> Can we drop this discussion until we can reprod
> On 20 Dec 2016, at 09:52, Dan Lüdtke wrote:
>
> Regarding the initial preciseness issue, have you tested that on LEDE? I
> can't manage to get duplicate routes. However, outdated testing environment.
> Will rebuild and test again. I can't quite understand what the initial issue
> was. Would
Regarding the initial preciseness issue, have you tested that on LEDE? I can't
manage to get duplicate routes. However, outdated testing environment. Will
rebuild and test again. I can't quite understand what the initial issue was.
Wouldn't you get a "rtnetlink: file exists" when you try to add
13 matches
Mail list logo
