Re: [wireguard-devel] About ip management

[nicolas prochazka <prochazka.nicolas@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1889 bytes --]

Thanks
These are good ideas to explore
Regards,
Nicolas

2017-02-20 13:48 GMT+01:00 Dan Lüdtke <mail@danrl.com>:

> Hi Nicolas,
>
>
> > On 17 Feb 2017, at 15:03, nicolas prochazka <prochazka.nicolas@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I hope not to have misunderstood ip management with wireguard,
> > in a "server mode operation" , as many peers -> one peer ( server ) ,
> > private ip configuration must be coherent.
>
> There is no need for private (assuming you mean RFC1918) addresses, but of
> course it works with private IPs as well as with public IP addresses.
>
>
> > In fact, as server / client example in contrib, server must delivery ip
> to clients, there's no way for client to know good private_ip .
>
> Unless it is configured statically, which is what I suggest doing. There
> is plenty of IP space to use. Think of ULA or subprefixes of you GU(s). A
> single /64 should be sufficient to address all your clients uniquely per
> "server wg interface". The situation for legacy IP is also not that bad.
> RFC1918 space is huge, and there is also RFC6598 to pick from. Why don't
> just roll out IP configurations the same way you roll out WireGuard
> configuration? It's just a line more in the config when you use wg-quick.
>
>
> > We cannot use dhcp, layer 3 , so ...
>
> That's true for legacy IP. It does not hold true for state-of-the-art IP.
>
>
> > we need to implement a pool ip manager , is it correct ?
>
> I do not really know what you are referring to when you write "pool ip
> manager", but if you want to distribute IP configuration data inside the wg
> tunnel, you would need to configure static addresses to bootstrap that
> from. This might change in the future, as Jason said to be working in OOB
> features. IP management would then take place in user space mostly/entirely.
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2544 bytes --]