From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27571C433B4 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:43:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.zx2c4.com (lists.zx2c4.com [165.227.139.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E7C7601FB for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:43:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2E7C7601FB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ntrv.dk Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id c4508d97; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:43:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-relay.contabo.net (mail-relay.contabo.net [161.97.176.84]) by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id 4460f1f3 (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:57:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pxmg2.contabo.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail-relay.contabo.net (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E6C8A10101E for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:57:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from m14060.contabo.net (m14060.contabo.net [213.136.93.170]) by mail-relay.contabo.net (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id A6863100F46 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:57:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-qk1-f179.google.com ([209.85.222.179]:44556) by m14060.contabo.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1lRCzm-0005cA-5Z for wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:57:18 +0200 Received: by mail-qk1-f179.google.com with SMTP id y18so15468140qky.11 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:57:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532pkUI4O4lvpnluhv3idL+1nOX5Tguj/OZ2bxySn+XU/sLh9K4t ssUqYGTzVkougsx60GaBXlV1GTxv0knqUQbWaqA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwjAh1+RhJv+NV/Yg7c852HziZi35gsbpVtO/B8cW7pOF3GKaU+SGGOqf91bwUYDeVOrHFoeKBPFZ+ys2qShYo= X-Received: by 2002:a37:acd:: with SMTP id 196mr31315281qkk.219.1617105432486; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:57:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <93213ae2-3ad1-7f8a-1e21-57f672738e18@babioch.de> In-Reply-To: From: Chriztoffer Hansen Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:55:46 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Best strategy for multiple point-to-point tunnels To: Karol Babioch Cc: "WireGuard List (wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - m14060.contabo.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.zx2c4.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ntrv.dk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: m14060.contabo.net: authenticated_id: ch@ntrv.dk X-Authenticated-Sender: m14060.contabo.net: ch@ntrv.dk X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:43:14 +0000 X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30rc1 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 13:53, Chriztoffer Hansen wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 23:35, Karol Babioch wrote: > > What is your recommendation on handling multiple peer-to-peer tunnels? > > Should I go for multiple interfaces or for one interface with multiple > > peers? > > If you plan to do L3 routing over the P2P tunnels (e.g. > OSPF/BGP/EIGRP/Babel/etc.). A dedicated wg interface per remote > endpoint is generally recommended. If you are doing a road-warrior style set-up. One WG interface (e.g. per subnet for road-warrior groups) at your aggregation point/server will be enough. -- Chriztoffer