will have to poll the logs. Polling too fast consumes power, polling too slow
may skip messages.
Best wishes,
StarBrilliant
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021, at 15:59, Nico Schottelius wrote:
>
> StarBrilliant writes:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021, at 10:21, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >> If your ISP is blocking your Wireguard traffic call them up and complain.
> >
> > All ISPs in China is blockin
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021, at 10:21, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> If your ISP is blocking your Wireguard traffic call them up and complain.
All ISPs in China is blocking Wireguard traffic. If you call any of them up,
you will end up in jail. There was a case where one user sued their ISP for
blocking
Hi Tomasz,
You might want to try my VWGen project:
https://github.com/m13253/VxWireguard-Generator
The program can generate configuration files for your network and run
VXLAN over Wireguard mesh.
Best regards,
StarBrilliant
On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 7:54 PM Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>
>
function "genkey" and "pubkey".
Best regards,
StarBrilliant
___
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
ion control or rate
control, neither does it understand any TCP semantics. It's a dirty
hack for dirty ISP, not suitable for everyone, but overwhelmingly
useful in certain countries.
2) Wireguard currently does not support binding to localhost. This is
required for any third-p
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:20 AM Fredrik Strömberg wrote:
> Using Pluggable Transports seem like a good solution. Simply divert
> WireGuard traffic to a local UDP port, which then sends it using a
> Pluggable Transport over the Internet to the other WireGuard peer.
>
> StarBrilliant
Hi,
(TL;DR: Please seriously consider preventing WG from being blocked,
for 2/3 of the world's Internet users. No need to break compatibility,
be friendly to PT plugins is a possible solution.)
I have been using WG for months. I understand the fact that Wireguard
wants to keep its protocol
ical levels:
It reduces the inner MTU to 1390. I provide this value for convenience.
Best regards,
StarBrilliant
___
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:41 PM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> WireGuard's socket.c calls udp_tunnel_xmit with the DF bit set to 0,
> which means if the underlying endpoint's path has an MTU that is too
> small, the UDP packet will simply be fragmented, not dropped.
Hi Jason,
Thank you for your
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 5:06 AM Roman Mamedov wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 02:53:44 +1000
> StarBrilliant wrote:
>
> > I know Wireguard can already do IP layer fragmentation. (Just set
> > tunnel MTU >= 1441 then fragmentation will be turned on)
>
> Is that
Hello Wireguard developers and uesrs,
Thank you for having built up this software!
Recently I found some problems transmitting large UDP packets at
certain network environments.
My network architecture consists of 2 layers (Wireguard + VXLAN) to
enable mesh routing based on BGP and Babel
12 matches
Mail list logo
