> On 20 Dec 2016, at 09:52, Dan Lüdtke <m...@danrl.com> 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 However, outdated testing environment.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. Wouldn't you get a "rtnetlink: file exists" when you try to add an route > that already exists?
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 reproduce the problem? >> >>> Regarding LEDE, netifd should track the routes being added and the extra >>> routes do not really do harm. >> >> Alright then... >> >> Speaking of netifd, did you ever fix that netifd issue with the IP >> dependency? > > I am on it. First version did add dependency for both protocols if the > endpoint name had A and AAAA records. However, I find it cleaner to check > which endpoint wg chose to use and only add that IP address as an depedency. > Patch/PR comes when I am satisfied with stability. https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/3680 This is the leanest approach I came up with and my top candidate for merging. Review very welcome. Thanks! Dan _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
