From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: lazyvirus@gmx.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id e8b0745a for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2017 20:12:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id a45181b2 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2017 20:12:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:34:12 +0200 From: Bzzzz To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Subject: Re: Many users Message-ID: <20170806223412.0f22e55a@msi.defcon1> In-Reply-To: References: <20170806210237.4dbbed42@msi.defcon1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:22:28 +0200 "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote: > Hey Jean-Yves, Hey Jay, > There's an artificial limitation of 65535 peers per interface. This It should fit in ("only" ~10,000) ;) > There was somebody on this list who set up thousands of peers and > thousands of interfaces a while ago, and after handling some issues > with him, things worked pretty well. I guess, when you're talking about "thousands of interfaces", you mean virtual ones ? Do you recall how many machines he was using ? BTW, for such cases may be it could be interesting to link WG to a sqlite DB ? > So, to answer your question: WireGuard should scale quite well, and > you shouldn't have many problems. But of course let me know if you do. OK, thanks, that's good to know that it has already be done and help is around. JY