From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: matthias@urlichs.de Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 2594c6df for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 11:25:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from netz.smurf.noris.de (netz.smurf.noris.de [213.95.21.43]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 63ed8854 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 11:25:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [2001:780:107:0:1278:d2ff:fea3:d4a6] by netz.extern.smurf.noris.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eNdMm-0004Di-Az for wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com; Sat, 09 Dec 2017 11:32:26 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch] add support for peer names using a file in userspace To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com References: <4B7E0154-039F-4008-9C47-C825E1474731@lonnie.abelbeck.com> <705B40D6-4947-4E5A-A042-B0C8A0D5BB84@lonnie.abelbeck.com> <1512781790.2178482.1199106832.50AF586D@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Matthias Urlichs Message-ID: <0582b73b-d364-5313-0fc0-2249833509df@urlichs.de> Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 12:32:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1512781790.2178482.1199106832.50AF586D@webmail.messagingengine.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4CB6B661424C08810878B620" List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4CB6B661424C08810878B620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 09.12.2017 02:09, Eric Light wrote: > For what it's worth, I agree with Lonnie that *something* is necessary. > > That said, I don't feel it makes sense in the context of > [Peer-why_would_this_go_here_its_very_strange]. > Well … I don't care whether it's named [Peer-foo] or [Peer_bar] or [Peer baz], though the third option is most appealing IMHO. I do however care a lot about not having multiple [Peer] sections in the config file. Automated tools like Ansible cannot deal with identically-tagged sections. This makes auto-updating my wireguard configuration unnecessarily difficult. Thus, if "wg showconf" is intended to output something that can be reused, then the kernel needs to know about the peer's name. -- -- Matthias Urlichs --------------4CB6B661424C08810878B620 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 09.12.2017 02:09, Eric Light wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree with Lonnie that *something* is necessary.

That said, I don't feel it makes sense in the context of [Peer-why_would_this_go_here_its_very_strange].

Well … I don't care whether it's named [Peer-foo] or [Peer_bar] or [Peer baz], though the third option is most appealing IMHO.

I do however care a lot about not having multiple [Peer] sections in the config file. Automated tools like Ansible cannot deal with identically-tagged sections. This makes auto-updating my wireguard configuration unnecessarily difficult.

Thus, if "wg showconf" is intended to output something that can be reused, then the kernel needs to know about the peer's name.

-- 
-- Matthias Urlichs
--------------4CB6B661424C08810878B620--