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 6e8bb31a for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 01:55:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from frisell.zx2c4.com (frisell.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.64]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 375fad22 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 01:55:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by frisell.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 9640a955 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 01:46:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by frisell.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id dc456a84 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128:NO) for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 01:46:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot0-f171.google.com with SMTP id a14-v6so11887903otf.6 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 19:09:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 04:09:17 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Policy-based routing To: Bruno 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: , Hi Bruno, You can't set multiple peers to use 0.0.0.0/0 at the same time on the same interface. How would it be able to choose which peer to send traffic to then? Instead, if you want some kind of redundancy or bonding, you can try using multiple interfaces, and then use whatever traditional routing or load balancing tools that you ordinarily would. Jason