From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: mmoya@mmoya.org Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id cbcc67c0 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:11:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wj0-f194.google.com (mail-wj0-f194.google.com [209.85.210.194]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id bbaeee6d for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:11:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wj0-f194.google.com with SMTP id j10so54519019wjb.3 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 05:20:00 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.177.2] (node03.mmoya.org. [45.76.39.94]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id x5sm64149736wje.36.2016.12.28.05.19.58 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Dec 2016 05:19:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [WireGuard] Demo Server: Dual stack? To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com References: <44DAF4D4-00A8-4903-8003-EB0215635B61@danrl.com> From: Maykel Moya Message-ID: <7973130b-159b-a7c9-c2d8-24ca7afa8914@mmoya.org> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:19:57 +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 16/11/16 15:49, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Dan Lüdtke 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