From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from yow.a-b.xyz ([45.32.152.219]) by ewsd; Thu Sep 26 06:45:18 EDT 2019
Received: 
	by yow.a-b.xyz (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id e13a00b4 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Thu, 26 Sep 2019 12:45:09 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <057711B3A1307F063348E49362834324@a-b.xyz>
To: 9front@9front.org
Subject: Re: [9front] tinc vs import
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 10:45:21 +0000
From: vp@a-b.xyz
In-Reply-To: 52E1ECCC-F570-45B1-B62E-EFADECF7066E@quintile.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: HTTP over SVG map/reduce storage session frontend 


I'm just about done herding up my humble assortment of networks and
nodes into a tinc VPN, and plan on setting up another for $work.

After an honest read through the documentation, some scribbling, and
after figuring out the oddities of TUN/TAP drivers for my respective
target systems--the setup itself was painless, owing much to sshfs(4).

> the performance of tinc(8) vs import /net /net.alt?

At the moment I don't have two 9fronts in the right places to run some
comparisons but it should come with no surprise if tinc UDP tunnel
completely outclassed tunneling all the /net operations over 9p RPC in
all but (and including) the most local of setups.

-- kvik