From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: matthias@urlichs.de Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 3ed33325 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:00:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from netz.smurf.noris.de (mail.smurf.noris.de [213.95.149.21]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id f9be5240 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:00:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hyper1.noris.net ([62.128.1.62] helo=[10.6.0.3]) by mail.vm.smurf.noris.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ec9rJ-000AZC-O9 for wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:03:57 +0100 Subject: Re: passtos patch To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com References: <4dc5f671-790e-88df-5483-ee00716d570e@zenit.ru> From: Matthias Urlichs Message-ID: <77d34157-cbe4-8085-7168-9a0e5fe52505@urlichs.de> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:03:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 18.01.2018 12:56, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote: > a workaround would be to bunch a > few wg tunnels (even bridge them at both ends?), use fwmark and mangle > the TOS with iptables/ift... So instead of outside information being visible by way of the TOS field it's now visible by way of different UDP ports we're talking to. I don't see any advantage here. In fact I don't see much advantage of passing TOS out in the first place. Either you have a reliable transit network with short queues, or you don't. In the former case TOS is useless. In the latter case you have other problems which a TOS field cannot fix anyway. (OK, this is a bit more black+white than the Real World, but …) -- -- Matthias Urlichs