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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D876E71D2D for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:13:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 1ed0098e; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:13:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from janet.servers.dxld.at (mail.servers.dxld.at [2001:678:4d8:200::1a57]) by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id 79f62b20 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO) for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:12:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: janet.servers.dxld.at; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 15:12:58 +0200 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 15:12:57 +0200 From: Daniel =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=B6ber?= To: labawi-wg@matrix-dream.net Cc: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Replace WireGuard AllowedIPs with IP route attribute Message-ID: <20230929131257.4uyp3fkxkxt7qg3f@darkboxed.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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" Hi Ivan, > IMO, a good tunnel solution may be if what is now called AllowedIPs, > were functionally split into: > - AcceptIPS (to be different from AllowedIPs) > - RouteIPs > Perhaps with a default shorthand of, say, IPs, setting both, as > AllowedIPs historically caused confusion wrt. it's meaning. That would be one way to paint the shed, yes. This alone doesn't really address the crux of the problem though: scalability. > Wireguard API is a bit clunky, but I think one could dynamically manage > routes in reasonably efficient ways without extra interfaces and layers. The entire idea with the new route attribute is to put this functionality into the right (pre-existing) layer and not invent a new way of expressing this. We even get scalability for free. Win-Win. --Daniel PS: Your mail didn't reach my inbox for some reason, I randomly found it while looking at the wg list archives. Consider configuring your mail client to To/CC people you're replying to in order to better handle flaky list servers.