From: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
Cc: "Daniel Gröber" <dxld@darkboxed.org>,
bird-users@network.cz, babel-users@alioth-lists.debian.net,
wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com
Subject: Re: [Babel-users] [RFC] Replace WireGuard AllowedIPs with IP route attribute
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:55:08 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJU8_nVTHmd9_=SXN+6maVB9BVLno_FGiM3RjZsCiXVOcNBLHg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87v8czqd3w.wl-jch@irif.fr>
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 1:41 PM Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
> I've read the whole discussion, and I'm still not clear what advantages
> the proposed route attribute has over having one interface per peer. Is
> it because interfaces are expensive in the Linux kernel? Or is there some
> other reason why it is better to run all WG tunnels over a single interface?
Why manage n^2 tunnels and allocate n^2 /30 CIDRs when you can just
have one tunnel and a single subnet for a full mesh? IMO, the latter
should be a feature differentiating Wireguard from other solutions to
creating a mesh VPN. That is, in fact, the whole reason I dropped
OpenVPN for it.
Kyle
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-28 18:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-19 14:02 Daniel Gröber
[not found] ` <5112ea1f-0f67-4907-a3c5-b6c7b9e591ca@kr217.de>
2023-08-19 18:17 ` Daniel Gröber
2023-08-19 20:00 ` [Babel-users] " Steffen Vogel
2023-08-19 21:23 ` Daniel Gröber
2023-08-28 15:40 ` Kyle Rose
2023-08-28 16:07 ` Daniel Gröber
2023-08-28 17:40 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2023-08-28 17:55 ` Kyle Rose [this message]
2023-08-28 22:13 ` Daniel Gröber
2023-09-03 3:21 ` Ivan Labáth
2023-09-29 13:12 ` Daniel Gröber
2023-09-29 16:19 ` Reto
[not found] ` <804a0c0a-78df-7f4c-1d0d-213e8bdb4120@nic.cz>
2023-11-09 11:57 ` [Babel-users] " Alexander Zubkov
2023-11-18 2:19 ` Daniel Gröber
[not found] ` <918e1d5b-9f11-4f9c-bf9a-94cb0d41ce2b@app.fastmail.com>
2023-11-18 12:22 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2023-11-20 2:05 ` Daniel Gröber
[not found] ` <CABr+u0b6vrZoYzQcMiCXX7W0XsQRNMzQfZnT5cK1MQoZ4NoqkA@mail.gmail.com>
2023-11-22 7:39 ` Daniel Gröber
2023-08-19 20:05 ` Kyle Rose
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='CAJU8_nVTHmd9_=SXN+6maVB9BVLno_FGiM3RjZsCiXVOcNBLHg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=krose@krose.org \
--cc=babel-users@alioth-lists.debian.net \
--cc=bird-users@network.cz \
--cc=dxld@darkboxed.org \
--cc=jch@irif.fr \
--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).