From: Steve Gilberd <steve@erayd.net>
To: Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>
Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: Allowed IPs Toggling
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:55:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJQSx3bx5w7TySnJX2GJa+PG+6sQW6G+E=RJ0+jwRxr9qReXaA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8debf4cc-572f-2a75-39c6-e109ebb8e73b@sholland.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2018 bytes --]
> WireGuard *does* support overlapping ranges of AllowedIPs on different
peers. It
> doesn't support having *identical* ranges of AllowedIPs on different
peers,
> which was the situation here. (You're correct, there's no concept of a
metric.)
Oh good - looks like I just misunderstood your ordinal email then; I
thought you were saying that any situation with multiple routes to a single
IP was unsupported. Thanks for clarifying :-).
Cheers,
Steve
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, 07:51 Samuel Holland, <samuel@sholland.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 03/15/18 13:39, Steve Gilberd wrote:
> >> Allowed IPs is like a routing table; you can't have two routes for the
> same
> > set of IPs
> >
> > If this is the case, then wireguard does not have proper routing support.
> >
> > Normally, routing tables allow both multiple and overlapping routes
> present.
> > When making routing decisions, the most-specific route is chosen (e.g. a
> /29 is
> > higher priority than a /24 which overlaps with it). If there are two
> identical
> > routes of the same size, then the one with the lowest routing metric is
> used.
> >
> > I can understand not allowing identical routes of the same size, as
> wireguard
> > doesn't really have a concept of metric (although it could be useful for
> backup
> > links). However, it really should allow overlapping routes of different
> sizes.
> > There's no ambiguity with routing decisions, and it's a standard feature
> that I
> > would normally expect any IP routing stack to have.
>
> WireGuard *does* support overlapping ranges of AllowedIPs on different
> peers. It
> doesn't support having *identical* ranges of AllowedIPs on different peers,
> which was the situation here. (You're correct, there's no concept of a
> metric.)
>
> > Cheers,
> > Steve
>
> Cheers,
> Samuel
>
--
Cheers,
*Steve Gilberd*
Erayd LTD *·* Consultant
*Phone: +64 4 974-4229 **·** Mob: +64 27 565-3237*
*PO Box 10019 The Terrace, Wellington 6143, NZ*
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2815 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-15 18:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-15 15:31 Gianluca Gabrielli
2018-03-15 15:56 ` Samuel Holland
2018-03-15 18:39 ` Steve Gilberd
2018-03-15 18:51 ` Samuel Holland
2018-03-15 18:55 ` Steve Gilberd [this message]
2018-03-16 2:12 ` Tim Sedlmeyer
2018-03-16 12:44 ` Gianluca Gabrielli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAJQSx3bx5w7TySnJX2GJa+PG+6sQW6G+E=RJ0+jwRxr9qReXaA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=steve@erayd.net \
--cc=samuel@sholland.org \
--cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).