From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: bruno@streamfeed.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 755c7cd3 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 18:30:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com (mail-qk0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id fae56020 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 18:30:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id f9so4598615qkm.12 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 11:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Subject: Re: Policy-based routing To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" References: From: Bruno Message-ID: <8108c2eb-e407-9d6d-4c0c-d26eb7a2bc93@streamfeed.com> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 15:44:28 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Cc: WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Jason, Thanks for your input. I agree with you. But I could have the peers based on table routing and marking packets, were all the traffic (0.0.0.0/0) would be routed based on the prior conditions (tables and marking). I'm doing one interface per peer right now, but I thought it could be possible to achieve the same results with just one interface. Bruno On 04/13/2018 11:09 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hi Bruno, > > You can't set multiple peers to use 0.0.0.0/0 at the same time on the > same interface. How would it be able to choose which peer to send > traffic to then? Instead, if you want some kind of redundancy or > bonding, you can try using multiple interfaces, and then use whatever > traditional routing or load balancing tools that you ordinarily would. > > Jason