From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Jason@zx2c4.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 3ae9abb3 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 22:08:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from frisell.zx2c4.com (frisell.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.64]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 89872dd5 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 22:08:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by frisell.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 221efd68 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 22:08:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by frisell.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id b3a0f6ab (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128:NO) for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 22:08:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 3so489314165oih.1 for ; Sun, 08 Jan 2017 14:18:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170108141216.GB6421@tuxmachine.polynome.dn42> References: <6d000312-635f-a361-200a-936da7ce7e17@web.de> <89477ad4-b015-d0a1-1c05-ea6600b2f464@web.de> <20170108141216.GB6421@tuxmachine.polynome.dn42> From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 23:18:01 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Multiple Endpoints To: Baptiste Jonglez Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > I am also interested in multiple endpoints support, and I am preparing a > proposal that I will send soon. Cool. Any details? Probably best to discuss it casually before putting too much work into it. Have you read that Mosh multipath paper? I just ran into this the other night and put it on my reading list. If so, is it any good or relavent to this? > So, if a client is connected to the server and the server changes its IP > address, the client will keep trying to use the old IP address forever. No. If the server sends a packet to the client using the same UDP src/dst, then it will make it to the client, and the client will learn the new server IP. > You would need to destroy the wireguard interface on the client and > recreate it, so that `wg` configures the kernel module with the new IP > address associated with the hostname. No. And even in the worst possible case, no destruction of the wg interface would be necessary. wg(8) can reconfigure all attributes on the fly. > You're right, in your case, you would need to setup port forwarding on > your client, so that wireguard on your client device can be reached from > any IP address. No. In the vast majority of cases I've seen, both stateful firewalls and NAT do not do the mapping based on the remote IP.