From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: eric@ericlight.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 079d5cdc for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 21:07:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 745a456c for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 21:06:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B4F20A8B for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:10:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1516309829.3149945.1240291760.7ADD3DD5@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Eric Light To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:10:29 +1300 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: passtos patch References: <4dc5f671-790e-88df-5483-ee00716d570e@zenit.ru> List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi all, Wearing my 'Wireguard enthusiast who doesn't know *that* much about crypto, and only uses WG as an end-user' hat: It sounds to me like additional complexity, additional code, and additional information leakage, for what seems to be a relatively uncommon scenario, which by the sounds of things could be addressed with fwmark. Are any of those observations incorrect? E -------------------------------------------- Q: Why is this email five sentences or less? A: http://five.sentenc.es On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, at 05:11, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Not sure the infoleak is worth it. > > List: thoughts? > _______________________________________________ > WireGuard mailing list > WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com > https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard