From: Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch>
To: Roman Mamedov <rm@romanrm.net>
Cc: Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch>,
wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com
Subject: Re: Multiple Keys per Peer
Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 14:06:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pmy9s5k2.fsf@ungleich.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210502164344.039fe960@natsu>
Roman Mamedov <rm@romanrm.net> writes:
> On Sun, 02 May 2021 13:02:28 +0200
> Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch> wrote:
>
>> when running a lot of VPN connections using wireguard, there are some
>> questions we see quite often from users, two of which I'd like to
>> discuss here:
>>
>> Multiple keys per Peer
>> ----------------------
>>
>> Users often ask for sharing their connection with multiple
>> devices. The obvious solution is for users to setup their own VPN
>> endpoint with the first key and then reshare themselves. However, this
>> is not feasible in many end user situations.
>
> The prime and the most straightforward solution is to give each user multiple
> keys, and let them connect from each endpoint as an independent Peer.
>
> The rest of what you propose appears to be a set of bizarre hacks because
> you don't want to do the above, because "(reasons)". Maybe start with
> detailing those reasons first, or reconsidering if they are *really* that
> important and unsurmountable :)
Practically speaking our VPN are currently rather
"dumb" and only know about /48's (usually one VPN server is responsible
for a /40). And in practice, we are not so much interested in knowing
how people split their tunnels, so we considers this more of a
dynamic routing than a static configuration.
However, I see your point that we could update our systems for
pre-processing the routing logic and letting users split on a static
basis and with that keeping the wireguard protocol more simple.
I'd say fair enough and thanks for the pointer!
Best regards,
Nico
--
Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-02 12:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-02 11:02 Nico Schottelius
2021-05-02 11:43 ` Roman Mamedov
2021-05-02 12:06 ` Nico Schottelius [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87pmy9s5k2.fsf@ungleich.ch \
--to=nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch \
--cc=rm@romanrm.net \
--cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).