On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:17:35 +0200 Kalin KOZHUHAROV <me.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a reason, at least one, good one - it is called simplicity. > It is also hard to work when you are running out of disk space or > memory; do you expect WG to solve that for you? > Simply put, IP addressing schemes are not a part of WG, neither a requirement. > There are many ways to use WG and "assign random, free IP address and > send to a new peer" is too specific of a use case. > > May be you can cobble up something with a DHCP server that cares about > certain address range? > Or a simple flat-file dB and a script that does it for you? > > What happens when you run out of addresses? > How do you re-assign an IP address to a new peer? > ... > Those are questions widely outside WG, IMHO. Agreed. One more idea that comes to mind, is to use IPv6 and assign IPs based on peer public keys. Assuming a fixed /64 subnet, using a 64-bit half of the public key for the host part, still makes collisions nearly impossible. -- With respect, Roman _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard