> 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*