From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: Roaming between IPv4 and IPv6?
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 23:08:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y3j4luw4.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9oF2TUQiO=xCeoMD2ajbG+16netREXD3YCem=j7HmwkoA@mail.gmail.com>
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> writes:
> Hey Toke,
>
> For incoming packets, this would be strange behavior, since it's
> listening on v4 and v6.
Yeah, I think the incoming side is fine (it works over both v4 and v6 as
long as I have connectivity on the other end).
> For outgoing packets, if wireguard thinks it should be sending to a v6
> address, then that's what it will do.
Right, so it's not just me, this doesn't actually work currently. Cool ;)
> One way to fix this would be to re-resolve DNS from userspace, which
> is a bit ugly. Another way would be to simply store the last v4
> address, and fall back to that if it can't establish a route for the
> v6 address. And yet another way -- if simplicity is desired -- would
> be to do nothing (the status quo), and not build legacy semantics into
> something new. Any opinions on this?
While I can appreciate the simplicity of doing nothing, I think seamless
roaming even across v4/v6 is a pretty killer feature to have. It turns
wireguard into a "universal connectivity" tool that you can just enable
and forget about, without having to worry about calls dropping when
roaming, etc.
I think the idea of configuring both v4 and v6 on startup and caching
them is a reasonable idea. Maybe even configure all available addresses
when doing the initial DNS lookup? Or is that awkward to do?
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-06 21:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-06 21:53 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-03-06 21:57 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2018-03-06 22:08 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2018-03-06 22:14 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2018-03-07 0:31 ` Kalin KOZHUHAROV
2018-03-07 8:56 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-03-06 22:59 ` Matthias Urlichs
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=87y3j4luw4.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@toke.dk \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--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).