Re: [wireguard-devel] About ip management

["Dan Lüdtke" <mail@danrl.com>]

Hi Nicolas,


> On 17 Feb 2017, at 15:03, nicolas prochazka =
<prochazka.nicolas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope not to have misunderstood ip management with wireguard,=20
> in a "server mode operation" , as many peers -> one peer ( server ) ,
> private ip configuration must be coherent.

There is no need for private (assuming you mean RFC1918) addresses, but =
of course it works with private IPs as well as with public IP addresses.


> In fact, as server / client example in contrib, server must delivery =
ip to clients, there's no way for client to know good private_ip .

Unless it is configured statically, which is what I suggest doing. There =
is plenty of IP space to use. Think of ULA or subprefixes of you GU(s). =
A single /64 should be sufficient to address all your clients uniquely =
per "server wg interface". The situation for legacy IP is also not that =
bad. RFC1918 space is huge, and there is also RFC6598 to pick from. Why =
don't just roll out IP configurations the same way you roll out =
WireGuard configuration? It's just a line more in the config when you =
use wg-quick.


> We cannot use dhcp, layer 3 , so ...=20

That's true for legacy IP. It does not hold true for state-of-the-art =
IP.


> we need to implement a pool ip manager , is it correct ?

I do not really know what you are referring to when you write "pool ip =
manager", but if you want to distribute IP configuration data inside the =
wg tunnel, you would need to configure static addresses to bootstrap =
that from. This might change in the future, as Jason said to be working =
in OOB features. IP management would then take place in user space =
mostly/entirely.

Hope that helps!

Cheers,

Dan=