From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B92BC433DB for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 20:12:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.zx2c4.com (lists.zx2c4.com [165.227.139.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F05F22D5A for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 20:12:16 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2F05F22D5A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=osk.ch Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id f70e7319; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 20:12:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.osk.ch (dynamic.wline.6rd.res.cust.swisscom.ch [2a02:1205:5052:8220:20f:feff:fe92:5373]) by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id 5df5f1fb (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 20:12:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server.osk.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.osk.ch (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id 105KCDmx031303; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 21:12:13 +0100 Received: (from osk@localhost) by server.osk.ch (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id 105KCCcK031302; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 21:12:12 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: server.osk.ch: osk set sender to wg@osk.ch using -f Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 21:12:12 +0100 From: Chris Osicki To: Gijs Conijn Cc: WireGuard mailing list Subject: Re: WG default routing Message-ID: <20210105201212.GA31054@server> References: <20210103215441.GA24251@server> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-message-flag: Using Microsoft software might be a security risk User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (mail.osk.ch [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 05 Jan 2021 21:12:13 +0100 (CET) for IP:'127.0.0.1' DOMAIN:'localhost' HELO:'server.osk.ch' FROM:'wg@osk.ch' RCPT:'' X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (mail.osk.ch [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 05 Jan 2021 21:12:13 +0100 (CET) X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30rc1 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 01:22:31PM +0000, Gijs Conijn wrote: > That is what I am using the allowed IP's for > I only want to route via the tunnel to my home LAN so I enter the WG subnet and the home LAN subnet in allowed IP's > (As I understood Allowed IP's are not only Allowed but also routed via the tunnel) > > Regards, Erik > DDWRT WireGuard user > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: WireGuard Namens Chris Osicki > Verzonden: zondag 3 januari 2021 22:55 > Aan: WireGuard mailing list > Onderwerp: WG default routing > > Hi > > I am quite new to wireguard, moving after years of OpenVPN, and found it simple and _really good_. > One thing, however, makes me wonder. Why WG tries always to take over all my routing? > My first try was with wg-quick, and noticed all my traffic went through the WG-VPN connection. > It escapes me why. What is the idea behind this policy? > > On my Linux boxes it's not a problem, I don't have to use wg-quick and with few lines of bash in a script I have what I need. I have root. > On my Android devices I don't have root, and I cannot change anything in routing etc. > Why don't you provide an option to specify which net to route which way? > > Regards, > Chris > Hi As far as I can see after few tests, AllowedIPs config file option has nothing to do with routing and I hope it will stay like this. It is just a filter and the next question arise: why this? Don't we have iptables/nftables? Or is it for non Unix-like systems? Regards, Chris