From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A3F6C433DF for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (krantz.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35753204EA for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acpr.dev header.i=@acpr.dev header.b="UVRW6Hy7" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 35753204EA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=acpr.dev Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 7284fa44; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:35:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ua1-x92e.google.com (mail-ua1-x92e.google.com [2607:f8b0:4864:20::92e]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id 419f5f3f (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO) for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:35:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua1-x92e.google.com with SMTP id j21so6230395ual.11 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 06:58:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acpr.dev; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=w1s2QSr7bMODTN+zGBLQLbO/nFCn3ZWAJOpu+A8XtA0=; b=UVRW6Hy7WWxlQCj06RXXeJinkGEJ5MtC+fN65Tq332odX1gOPughabwxqcbsMB0g5C TW0nIvAZiAhgDGQh8cZgWlXiEVdpwHUFH7z7KdPzmJRnUPVXRRlVHpdR6AhsT41a5Eed gHp2z2wHSeHnzKPcrnAXjMNR7QjK7v33048UzXwSyJ8hD40IITWQRFD0oB4Hf+DoDtOn hwxnXkAEZkNMjhCokUjFP4P4sLYvkZtR6BM0+0ylX9s5VhP5fhQwOn/79tsp9hieVHTL 5iPrsgxgBWS7ZSKz9C8SZpa7U7FwJ9ZuHYv4LxiKI7rY/7Fw4l/jCVgwjjiZ1HGQ7R7W z/5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=w1s2QSr7bMODTN+zGBLQLbO/nFCn3ZWAJOpu+A8XtA0=; b=TKmxtBIUlKXM1Bp2Sw8wfcT/lTHGrYhJHRaEjPXDjnDnwTr2SZhSNWJEKhlQZzgeDG vvukb2Rl+bFLyvoPU6UcywkLT4BkYs8e3QKJ7ubsZncmEh6m3L/T2Hj5+1l9ZNqt+VHx UieXAi1RnkL/ih5kpWdMoqITXHmI2DyJkcXHYNxEg2aYsCf/b4odbll/HzxzuGNppTTu v4uFYwXafd8Fte3CkE7r7A7RCBvMRkovywjZ6ajtcmuMslnXki3pa25K17pUwSWee4iF Z/7OQbWfiQD9cHIRbb2xmHZQUOGIFEiOPCbWhfGaf/V0b5CRS0oGYpb/utUHbk15Y/0g JEnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Yiubbnz6RTXIYYnaZXsiEtf67dvR/roEces1YJzhfAZrqeL1u 2UlV+zUt80qNmCrvoldtauGT3x0C4y9o59ZFAwqtjg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxknwDrrvAl6BP1vwtmmrHiiZyiS98ktJZtnT57UrQOVobMCu1DDr08+nAPKkUUufBiBnNLztYbX73zIMlCRZE= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:7811:: with SMTP id x17mr19564026uaq.140.1595339894776; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 06:58:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <165a92238115e99b03740768d843a20f@cagir.me> <51bfa8c5-d433-d7db-ad42-026b9ced0478@cagir.me> In-Reply-To: <51bfa8c5-d433-d7db-ad42-026b9ced0478@cagir.me> From: Adam Cooper Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:58:03 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: MacOS IPv6 not functioning without custom static route To: =?UTF-8?B?SGFzYW4gQmVya2F5IMOHYcSfxLFy?= Cc: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30rc1 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" Wow. So I'd made the assumption that this is just what I needed to do to access lan resources. Turns out "0.0.0.0/0, ::/1, 8000::/1" will allow that just fine on OSX. I still get a broken system if I specify ::/0 as the default route doesn't appear to get created but with using ::/1 8000::/1 it seems to work around that. Problem solved! Thank you. Though it's not at all intuitive or expected. Is there some issue queue or something this can be added to for the OSX client application? Thanks Adam On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 14:49, Hasan Berkay =C3=87a=C4=9F=C4=B1r wrote: > > Are you sure that private IPs get routed through WG while AllowedIPs is > "0.0.0.0/0, ::/1, 8000::/1"? I have just tried to ping my local router > whilst connected to a tunnel with "0.0.0.0/0, ::/1, 8000::/1" and didn't > have a problem. > > I mean, the way which makes sense is that AllowedIPs should work with > your configuration and we wouldn't even have this conversation, however > there are some things awkwardly different on the MacOS version from the > GNU/Linux versions of WG client(s), so I think it might help to try > every variation. > > Best, > Berkay > > On 21.07.20 15:29, Adam Cooper wrote: > > Mmm. It looks like unticking "Exclude Private IPs" and entering > > "0.0.0.0/0, ::/1, 8000::/1" gives me a functional setup. Trouble is I > > don't want to route the private IPs and ticking the box (whilst > > retaining '::/1, 8000::/1') allows no traffic at all. There's > > something odd about the way the client is configuring routes but I've > > not got the expertise to figure it out :( > > > > On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 14:12, Hasan Berkay =C3=87a=C4=9F=C4=B1r wrote: > >> > >> On 15/07/2020 14:14, Adam Cooper wrote: > >>> ... > >>> Probably worth mentioning that I tried to replace ::/0 with ::/1, > >>> 8000::/1 but that just results in completely broken connectivity in > >>> IPv6 and IPv4 - which may be another issue in and of itself. > >> > >> Did you try only having "::/1, 8000::/1" in the AllowedIPs option? I h= ad > >> a default route creation issue myself where I'm only trying to tunnel > >> IPv6 through; and having this actually solved it. > >> > >> $ netstat -nr > >> Routing tables > >> Internet: > >> ... > >> Internet6: > >> Destination Gateway > >> Flags Netif Expire > >> ::/1 link#14 > >> UCS utun2 > >> default fe80::%utun0 > >> UGcI utun0 > >> default fe80::%utun1 > >> UGcI utun1 > >> default fe80::%utun3 > >> UGcI utun3 > >> default [ public IPv6 ] > >> UGcI utun2 > >> > >> If just "::/1, 8000::/1" solves the IPv6 issue, I guess you can give i= t > >> a try with "0.0.0.0/0, ::/1, 8000::/1" to see if both routes are creat= ed > >> properly? > >> > >> Best, > >> Berkay