Re: [WireGuard] Demo Server: Dual stack?

[Maykel Moya <mmoya@mmoya.org>]

On 16/11/16 15:49, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Dan Lüdtke <mail@danrl.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>>> I guess I could provide IPv6 connectivity, but.... why? It's a demo.
>>
>> Because it is a demo of a brand new protocol, showing how it can be used with legacy versions payload and transport protocol. I find that odd, but as I understand we have contradicting point of views on IP protocols.
> 
> I see what you mean. That's a fair point. We might as well give people
> an opportunity for trying things out, indeed.

Chiming in just to tell that my ip6 experience is a breeze since
wireguard appeared.

Right now I found myself advocating WG more as a simple-to-configure and
reliable-roaming ip6 tunnelling technology than a VPN itself.

I've previously used HE (with a handcrafted mechanism to update my
public ip4 endpoint whenever it changed) or SiXXs with a new daemon
running in my system.

With WG it's just setup and forget. Roaming is *reliable*, subjective
performance is impressive (you've done the measures, I just browse and
use services from the v6 internet without hassle).

IMHO ip6 tunnelling is a(nother) good selling point of WG.

Cheers,
maykel