From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: me.kalin@gmail.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 98a3f479 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:27:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ot0-f173.google.com (mail-ot0-f173.google.com [74.125.82.173]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id fb6e5698 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:27:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot0-f173.google.com with SMTP id u10so8850952otc.12 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 02:31:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Kalin KOZHUHAROV Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:30:56 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Roaming Mischief To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" 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 Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > The other approach would be to add an optional exclamation > mark to the end of an endpoint specification > (Endpoint=my.server.whatever.zx2c4.com:51820!), that would prevent > servers from roaming; the client would still roam in the eyes of the > server, but the server, would no longer roam in the eyes of the > client. In other words, an option -- gasp, a nob! -- to disable > roaming on a per-by-peer one-sided basis. As you know, I don't really > like nobs. And I'd hate to add this, and then for people to use it, > and then loose some nice aspects of roaming, if it's not really even > required. > I have been wondering along those lines of roaming... There are certain use cases that require no roaming at all, e.g. a small set of servers that don't change IP. Anyway, a somewhat limited "roaming" can be achieved via DNS/hosts, if one trusts that system. While seamless roaming is a feature you use often I guess, my personal preference is to have it optional and explicitly specified, e.g. I have a few mobile devices (laptop, tablet), that only talk to 1 (or few at most) fixed IP (or DNS at least) "servers" (yes I know WG is P2P) and via those to the rest of the fixed hosts. So in this scenario (somewhat hard to achieve by {ip,nf}tables), I'd rather spec who is talking to whom, who can roam, etc. As for the syntax, and I hate to suggest that, adding a new option (breaking compatibility) like "AllowRoaming=yes|1" with default AllowRoaming=no is what I would like, instead of somewhat vague "!" at the end. Just my 2 (EUR) cents. Cheers, Kalin.