From: Egbert Verhage <egbert@eggiecode.org>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
jomat+wireguard.io@jmt.gr
Cc: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com
Subject: Re: Debian-based configuration for wireguard
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 12:22:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1499768576.988.3.camel@eggiecode.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ziccyoo1.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Hey dkg,
On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 17:20 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> thanks for these pointers, Egbert!
>
> i have a few questions about the proposed modification for ifupdown:
>
> * do we really want this to be a new interface type instead of
> extending the capabilities of some other configuration type?
Was easy for me to recognize the wireguard interface as a config type
in a network/interface config.
And wanted to learn how the package of ifupdown work.
>
> * if we can't just extend an existing type, wireguard seems more
> analogous to the "tunnel" type than to the "static" type, which is
> what this seems to have evolved from.
Indeed it is just a copy of the static type and I have not seen the
tunnel type.
>
> * it looks to me like configuring a wireguard link this way will
> require an entry in /etc/network/interfaces (or interfaces.d)
> *and* a
> config file in /etc/wireguard/*.conf. It seems like it would be
> cleaner to have all the configuration in one place, no?
Yes I would be cleaner, but the config of wg can change so I have keep
it separate.
>
> * would you consider submitting these changes to ifupdown in the
> debian
> BTS? Is there a reason that they should remain in your PPA?
Nop, just a proof of concept (My case used with ansible to rollout ~10
machines).
>
> fwiw, some of us do also run debian systems without ifupdown these
> days.
> I'm looking forward to systemd-networkd integration personally :)
Me to, I hope in the next ubuntu lts ifupdown has been replaced with
systemd-networkd. Then works _network-online.target_ proper in a
systemd service. (And ofc the wg is in the main stream kernel).
I made the update to ifupdown when wg-quick was not around.
Besides that, the only thing I don't like about wg-quick if you put
0.0.0.0 in the AllowedIPs it automaticly make a default route to the wg
endpoint.
Greetz,
Egbert
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-11 10:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-09 21:30 Baptiste Jonglez
2017-07-09 23:17 ` jomat+wireguard.io
2017-07-10 2:53 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2017-07-10 19:53 ` Egbert Verhage
2017-07-10 21:20 ` Daniel Kahn Gillmor
2017-07-11 1:59 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2017-07-11 10:22 ` Egbert Verhage [this message]
2017-07-11 13:04 ` jomat+wireguard.io
2017-07-11 22:19 ` Daniel Kahn Gillmor
2017-07-11 22:48 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2017-07-11 23:12 ` Daniel Kahn Gillmor
2017-07-10 2:51 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2017-07-10 20:14 raul
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1499768576.988.3.camel@eggiecode.org \
--to=egbert@eggiecode.org \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=dkg@fifthhorseman.net \
--cc=jomat+wireguard.io@jmt.gr \
--cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).