From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: baptiste@bitsofnetworks.org Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 7467e523 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:48:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mails.bitsofnetworks.org (rezine.polyno.me [193.33.56.138]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id a77a030e for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:48:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:58:37 +0100 From: Baptiste Jonglez To: Will van Gulik Subject: Re: Maximum number of interfaces + Debug Message-ID: <20170111095837.GB11399@tuxmachine.polynome.dn42> References: <698F0489-3376-4D52-A48E-A4C9F344D817@porcus.ch> <9F550D1D-A374-48D6-881E-D626BB250E8F@porcus.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ" In-Reply-To: <9F550D1D-A374-48D6-881E-D626BB250E8F@porcus.ch> Cc: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Will, On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:49:03PM +0100, Will van Gulik wrote: > Hi Everyone, >=20 > I went a bit further and did compile the module with debug rather than us= ing the repo's version, and I get a : > wireguard: Invalid packet from xxxx:yyy > in my dmesg. I would have hoped to get something more clear, but would a = module version mismatch be an issue or does this mostly looks like a key is= sue ? I would be strange because I reissued them several times. There have been backwards-incompatible changes recently: can you make sure that you use the exact same wireguard version on all peers? > Any clue, ideas, else ? >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Will >=20 > > On 03 Jan 2017, at 09:52, Will van Gulik wro= te: > >=20 > > Hi, > >=20 > > I'm trying to use multiple wireguard tunnel in one VM at the same time,= but it seems that only the first two I configured are working. I'm current= ly trying with 5 interfaces, I see the incoming packet in tcpdump but no re= action of the destination host with all the wg interfaces. > >=20 > > I'm not sure there is a limitation on that, I could totally have missed= that. Should I use 1 interface with multiple peers rather than multiple in= terface ? > >=20 > > I'm testing that on a Debian with 4.8.7-1, running on a KVM host. > >=20 > > Any insight ? > >=20 > > Kind regards, > >=20 > > Will > > _______________________________________________ > > WireGuard mailing list > > WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com > > https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard >=20 > _______________________________________________ > WireGuard mailing list > WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com > https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard --NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEjVflzZuxNlVFbt5QvgHsIqBOLkYFAlh2AckACgkQvgHsIqBO Lkb7sxAAtFv82ShDyr2R/K8V6GOdFciosH24xuEKOMbZFzFsqTKmtIdnh7/YpFEI pSoTMG2ZlwUJ2Rz0DyzP6+wiLH+MHjGv11LIN4ge1ORF1EoiPGMWOBNutiu66c6x +/L06j66cR/m/iaNsCdojov1pGUksH78sH6ncHsJupO4QUK6U9pAxqMYJ6b9Diqq BgcZEqjB3Hfc1ECvqeFuSB3uC9pa+o7/3M9/GT/W7C6J7llZsnR6/BXPGTh2LwEq iuHvH0wLPJy9UG6qeKseL4QSKo1a6knRDcGFRVPVm4bocLJXOJqTn8yR0ruyJdjt e2cLRIVA3ZIKvi8Il3kJiAWORp0r1RaJWo2+4i8SXiw6nNLmYX4faklbI5NsMStY 7yoACNbsJOLSHEEKikk9B5O7r+voYEPFiIiwuqBVd43ye/h6I6Q6tA+Psuvnsukq Lj4M8+8uvYPH84FPbQAkZn2xh5qRWDBzO77gqLKrASFTR49X3woGLrNWEsDs6UHZ TlcBbBF8sGxC5ICfyG7DPlojtv7HA5bLp6MiMTVylTCVgWAmvPY1k9qwssnObNHa OuBzdqcgq1ReE2MKRa8MzBzKGoHcxzR1AHEILgLeyWBn8s0m4fbzPTuBEResXomv x9SClUdfMcXtlOqNRhUW7v1iImCr0zjrLUYY7FGw+YuRheYb7+g= =+vJr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ--