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=-5.1 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,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 A2492C433ED for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:46:54 +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 94B5D613D0 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:46:53 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 94B5D613D0 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=harbourfrontcentre.com 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 dbe517ea; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:46:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dkim.harbourfrontcentre.com (dkim.harbourfrontcentre.com [66.212.179.252]) by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id a918850c (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from photolib.harbourfrontcentre.com ([192.168.1.26]) by dkim.harbourfrontcentre.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 136KSTcB028101 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 16:28:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=harbourfrontcentre.com; s=hfc; t=1617740910; bh=hPYu22Mgm/l6Wws7IAvghQCJwEZbcWn7ZCLI22l5fqE=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=LDgdnlpMGlrI6dGGzxNQsgIK6Z05yvxJ7iH9zdO43V+1lvbObGGS5kSqte2Q65bP8 G7Nm4n1MdKDQ6oRPSMpzdm7W9crVVNVk6+DTO6l2AR1sotOOZ7smWZ7ByHAc2+B1W0 wCT9qiPQZX6OsiDkJCJmxZvYgmamA2bb7h+EHO5w= Received: from [10.235.4.109] (ALLEN-PC10.hftnet [10.235.4.109]) by photolib.harbourfrontcentre.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 136KSTxX029590 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 16:28:29 -0400 Subject: Re: Best strategy for multiple point-to-point tunnels To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com References: <93213ae2-3ad1-7f8a-1e21-57f672738e18@babioch.de> From: Allen Chen Message-ID: <76daec03-67b8-25a7-a2c1-bd51a0e9c891@harbourfrontcentre.com> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 16:28:29 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Unsub: msg.XXs1PFwv X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 21:46:47 +0000 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" The process of update is bugging me a lot. Does a update break the 1-n connection? There should be a way to check the version compatibility. But I don't know how. Allen On 3/30/2021 7:55 AM, Chriztoffer Hansen wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 13:53, Chriztoffer Hansen wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 23:35, Karol Babioch wrote: >>> What is your recommendation on handling multiple peer-to-peer tunnels? >>> Should I go for multiple interfaces or for one interface with multiple >>> peers? >> If you plan to do L3 routing over the P2P tunnels (e.g. >> OSPF/BGP/EIGRP/Babel/etc.). A dedicated wg interface per remote >> endpoint is generally recommended. > If you are doing a road-warrior style set-up. One WG interface (e.g. > per subnet for road-warrior groups) at your aggregation point/server > will be enough. >