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 1d1352f7 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 08:43:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mel.porcus.ch (mel.porcus.ch [46.20.250.35]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 4ad2cdc0 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 08:43:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.100.198] (unknown [46.20.248.4]) by mel.porcus.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC6191A0939 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 09:59:00 +0100 (CET) From: Will van Gulik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Maximum number of interfaces ? Message-Id: <698F0489-3376-4D52-A48E-A4C9F344D817@porcus.ch> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 09:52:14 +0100 To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\)) List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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=