From: Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>
To: Steve Gilberd <steve@erayd.net>
Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: Allowed IPs Toggling
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:51:45 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8debf4cc-572f-2a75-39c6-e109ebb8e73b@sholland.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJQSx3Y3EXWhtHJGi40kjYiha9nZHYs4i8v9LbbdO4PHaGnDnw@mail.gmail.com>
Hello,
On 03/15/18 13:39, Steve Gilberd wrote:
>> Allowed IPs is like a routing table; you can't have two routes for the same
> set of IPs
>
> If this is the case, then wireguard does not have proper routing support.
>
> Normally, routing tables allow both multiple and overlapping routes present.
> When making routing decisions, the most-specific route is chosen (e.g. a /29 is
> higher priority than a /24 which overlaps with it). If there are two identical
> routes of the same size, then the one with the lowest routing metric is used.
>
> I can understand not allowing identical routes of the same size, as wireguard
> doesn't really have a concept of metric (although it could be useful for backup
> links). However, it really should allow overlapping routes of different sizes.
> There's no ambiguity with routing decisions, and it's a standard feature that I
> would normally expect any IP routing stack to have.
WireGuard *does* support overlapping ranges of AllowedIPs on different peers. It
doesn't support having *identical* ranges of AllowedIPs on different peers,
which was the situation here. (You're correct, there's no concept of a metric.)
> Cheers,
> Steve
Cheers,
Samuel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-15 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-15 15:31 Gianluca Gabrielli
2018-03-15 15:56 ` Samuel Holland
2018-03-15 18:39 ` Steve Gilberd
2018-03-15 18:51 ` Samuel Holland [this message]
2018-03-15 18:55 ` Steve Gilberd
2018-03-16 2:12 ` Tim Sedlmeyer
2018-03-16 12:44 ` Gianluca Gabrielli
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=8debf4cc-572f-2a75-39c6-e109ebb8e73b@sholland.org \
--to=samuel@sholland.org \
--cc=steve@erayd.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).