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,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,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 58F71C433E4 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:01:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (krantz.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.69]) (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 079ED2064B for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:01:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=cagir.me header.i=@cagir.me header.b="AX/54i6N" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 079ED2064B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=cagir.me Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 1c287015; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:36:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qrelay9.mxroute.com (qrelay9.mxroute.com [172.82.139.9]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id f61c8598 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:26:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from filter003.mxroute.com ([168.235.111.26] 168-235-111-26.cloud.ramnode.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by qrelay9.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPA id 17371a2b2f60001411.002 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:49:14 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: e9ac3f8f03b7a6dfa1f405db63b683fd5d3c8fc82ffa X-Originating-IP: [168.235.111.26] Received: from echo.mxrouting.net (echo.mxrouting.net [116.202.222.109]) by filter003.mxroute.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FBD260035; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:49:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cagir.me; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=M8MtDOoNGNytWF8aNMY8cCtpnNfIolH30Knv/G0tweE=; b=AX/54i6Nxlg+3BOOf+bJlnq417 vepI44Z5yBy5OEtllJPwBOzrHSP+Clbvg0OZFHmLVB9aER+UxkqM9Z3mq45VoXwdBoca4zst/qs47 W6DJWNbuQYIUZTHdPoQD3M8kWYC7wJgsGh7xyINDXdV75jUOYnFW2p/6WcAzlPp1d1LERSFsf2KZc smKzmGrm4Y4wKdJLtN2hIxZYrESGvF+Nzoxh0IisKs8wFQdNnQMNwzvHWgsZVoKDS84yu9SktxVd5 pkPfpYtA4WOToHCY9g5e31yZ/Q252p3IpmhvMnqvfwjYtBVzLmAERXYP1FbKozP0u+BakRYjkHnt0 GbRoeH9Q==; Subject: Re: MacOS IPv6 not functioning without custom static route To: Adam Cooper Cc: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com References: <165a92238115e99b03740768d843a20f@cagir.me> From: =?UTF-8?B?SGFzYW4gQmVya2F5IMOHYcSfxLFy?= Message-ID: <51bfa8c5-d433-d7db-ad42-026b9ced0478@cagir.me> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:49:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AuthUser: berkay@cagir.me X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:36:50 +0200 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" Are you sure that private IPs get routed through WG while AllowedIPs is "0.0.0.0/0, ::/1, 8000::/1"? I have just tried to ping my local router whilst connected to a tunnel with "0.0.0.0/0, ::/1, 8000::/1" and didn't have a problem. I mean, the way which makes sense is that AllowedIPs should work with your configuration and we wouldn't even have this conversation, however there are some things awkwardly different on the MacOS version from the GNU/Linux versions of WG client(s), so I think it might help to try every variation. Best, Berkay On 21.07.20 15:29, Adam Cooper wrote: > Mmm. It looks like unticking "Exclude Private IPs" and entering > "0.0.0.0/0, ::/1, 8000::/1" gives me a functional setup. Trouble is I > don't want to route the private IPs and ticking the box (whilst > retaining '::/1, 8000::/1') allows no traffic at all. There's > something odd about the way the client is configuring routes but I've > not got the expertise to figure it out :( > > On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 14:12, Hasan Berkay Çağır wrote: >> >> On 15/07/2020 14:14, Adam Cooper wrote: >>> ... >>> Probably worth mentioning that I tried to replace ::/0 with ::/1, >>> 8000::/1 but that just results in completely broken connectivity in >>> IPv6 and IPv4 - which may be another issue in and of itself. >> >> Did you try only having "::/1, 8000::/1" in the AllowedIPs option? I had >> a default route creation issue myself where I'm only trying to tunnel >> IPv6 through; and having this actually solved it. >> >> $ netstat -nr >> Routing tables >> Internet: >> ... >> Internet6: >> Destination Gateway >> Flags Netif Expire >> ::/1 link#14 >> UCS utun2 >> default fe80::%utun0 >> UGcI utun0 >> default fe80::%utun1 >> UGcI utun1 >> default fe80::%utun3 >> UGcI utun3 >> default [ public IPv6 ] >> UGcI utun2 >> >> If just "::/1, 8000::/1" solves the IPv6 issue, I guess you can give it >> a try with "0.0.0.0/0, ::/1, 8000::/1" to see if both routes are created >> properly? >> >> Best, >> Berkay