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 28471d5e for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:24:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from frisell.zx2c4.com (frisell.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.64]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id ff3bcc22 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:24:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by frisell.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 951a7de7 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:15:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by frisell.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id 4ba126e0 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128:NO) for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:15:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f54.google.com with SMTP id f186so11761668oig.4 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 03:33:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1520248764.27019.10.camel@infradead.org> References: <41222FCF-F9F5-4FEC-AA71-73C48F4DA4BA@gmail.com> <1520248764.27019.10.camel@infradead.org> From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:33:56 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Tunsafe Windows client for wireguard (not opensource yet they say To: David Woodhouse 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 Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 12:19 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > I wasn't sure whether to suggest this before, but adding Wireguard > support to OpenConnect ought to be fairly easy. We already support > three VPN protocols, so we have a *relatively* sane distinction between > the protocol-specific parts, and all the OS-specific tun device > handling and other bits that would just be gratuitous wheel-reinvention > for you. > > It basically gives you support for Windows, Solaris, OSX, Android and > various BSDs for nothing. With NetworkManager support. > > For a client that *isn't* purely wrapping the kernel implementation, it > probably makes sense rather starting from scratch. If anyone's > interested in working on it, I'd be happy to give some pointers. > > (I've also looked in the past at adding kernel support too, for DTLS > acceleration; I may take a look at that again.) That sounds pretty excellent. I'll add that the project TODO list and maybe we'll get an interested contributor or a GSoC student for it. By the way, how would you feel about doing this via the existing Go and Rust implementations? If I can jerry rig it into the build system, would you be interested?