From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: mailing-porcus@porcus.ch Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id e9e1dd67 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:39:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mel.porcus.ch (mel.porcus.ch [46.20.250.35]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 42beb00a for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:39:38 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EF927EA6-8F8B-4693-8E60-25547D885230" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: Maximum number of interfaces + Debug From: Will van Gulik In-Reply-To: <20170111095837.GB11399@tuxmachine.polynome.dn42> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:49:26 +0100 Message-Id: <364A8AFB-28FA-41BB-A6E4-FBB65C4BB069@porcus.ch> References: <698F0489-3376-4D52-A48E-A4C9F344D817@porcus.ch> <9F550D1D-A374-48D6-881E-D626BB250E8F@porcus.ch> <20170111095837.GB11399@tuxmachine.polynome.dn42> To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --Apple-Mail=_EF927EA6-8F8B-4693-8E60-25547D885230 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Baptiste, > On 11 Jan 2017, at 10:58, Baptiste Jonglez = wrote: >=20 > Hi Will, >=20 >=20 > There have been backwards-incompatible changes recently: can you make = sure > that you use the exact same wireguard version on all peers? I was using the same version (Debian package 0.0.20161230-1 from = Unstable). However my bug occured between the package version and the = compiled version from 0.0.20170105 . So I'll retry with both same kernel = modules. Because at least for that try, I have a mismatch. But for my = previous experiments all the version were the same. Additional question, is it better to use one interface with a big = subnet and multiple remote peers or an interface by peer with a /30 or a = /31 ?=20 Cheers,=20 Will >=20 >> Any clue, ideas, else ? >>=20 >> Cheers, >>=20 >> Will >>=20 >>> On 03 Jan 2017, at 09:52, Will van Gulik = wrote: >>>=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 = currently trying with 5 interfaces, I see the incoming packet in tcpdump = but no reaction 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 interface ? >>>=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 = --Apple-Mail=_EF927EA6-8F8B-4693-8E60-25547D885230 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi Baptiste,

On = 11 Jan 2017, at 10:58, Baptiste Jonglez <baptiste@bitsofnetworks.org> wrote:

Hi Will,


There have been backwards-incompatible = changes recently: can you make sure
that you use the exact same wireguard = version on all peers?

I was using = the same version (Debian package 0.0.20161230-1 from Unstable). = However my bug occured between the package version and the compiled = version from 0.0.20170105 . So I'll retry with both same kernel = modules. Because at least for that try, I have a mismatch. But for my = previous experiments all the version were the same.

Additional question, is it better to use  one = interface with a big subnet and multiple remote peers or an interface by = peer with a /30 or a /31 ? 

Cheers, 

Will


Any clue, ideas, else ?

Cheers,
Will

On 03 Jan 2017, at 09:52, Will van Gulik <mailing-porcus@porcus.ch> wrote:

Hi,

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 currently trying with 5 = interfaces, I see the incoming packet in tcpdump but no reaction of the = destination host with all the wg interfaces.

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 interface ?

I'm testing that = on a Debian with 4.8.7-1, running on a KVM host.

Any insight ?

Kind regards,

Will
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

= --Apple-Mail=_EF927EA6-8F8B-4693-8E60-25547D885230--