[WireGuard] AllowedIPs vs. TunnelIPs

[WireGuard] AllowedIPs vs. TunnelIPs

[Dan Lüdtke]

Any news on the AllowedIPs bikeshedding? What have you decided, Jason?
--> https://www.mail-archive.com/wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com/msg00068.html

Asking because I am working on an ansible module Would like to use the =
most recent name for the parameter name.

- Dan

PS: Good to see so much progress in the go-wireguard repo, Nathan! Thank =
you for your effort!=

Re: [WireGuard] AllowedIPs vs. TunnelIPs

[Michael Gerlach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1103 bytes --]

We also already done our wireguard deployment via ansible.

From my personal point of view AllowedIPs is completly fine - I do not
see any missunderstanding.. I would prefer to keep AllowedIPs -
especially because our module is done ;)

But yes, it would be good to announce potential option renaming in a
bigger style as people already use configuration deployment - Mind the
gap!


best regards,


n3ph

On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 04:26:01PM +0200, Dan Lüdtke wrote:
> Any news on the AllowedIPs bikeshedding? What have you decided, Jason?
> --> https://www.mail-archive.com/wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com/msg00068.html
> 
> Asking because I am working on an ansible module Would like to use the most recent name for the parameter name.
> 
> - Dan
> 
> PS: Good to see so much progress in the go-wireguard repo, Nathan! Thank you for your effort!
> _______________________________________________
> WireGuard mailing list
> WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
> http://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

-- 
Please use PGP - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]