From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: wasabee18@gmail.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 30186357 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 9fe3147a for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id r126so107780566wmr.0 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:11:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Wasa Bee Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:11:07 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: limitations To: WireGuard mailing list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c065e60790789054612b68f List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --94eb2c065e60790789054612b68f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi i've got 2 simple questions about WireGuard, correct me if I'm wrong: - it is only over UDP. If so, is there ever going to be a TCP version? A lot of applications that could benefit from WG use TCP. It does not seem wise to expect programmers to implement a TCP-like layer (eg retransmission, ack, etc) in userspace, is it? This would increase complexity unnecessarily and would lead to vuln in practice... - WG is implemented as a patch to the kernel or a kernel module? The reason I ask is that when an update is available for WG, it would be good not to have to replace the whole kernel, but only reload a patched WG module. Also: if there are ongoing sessions with some clients, how would sessions be re-established (afaik, the current design is to simply ignore irrelevant messages)? Thanks --94eb2c065e60790789054612b68f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi

i've got 2 simple questions abou= t WireGuard, correct me if I'm wrong:

- it is = only over UDP. If so, is there ever going to be a TCP version? A lot of app= lications that could benefit from WG use TCP. It does not seem wise to expe= ct programmers to implement a TCP-like layer (eg retransmission, ack, etc) = in userspace, is it? This would increase complexity unnecessarily and would= lead to vuln in practice...

- WG is implemented a= s a patch to the kernel or a kernel module? The reason I ask is that when a= n update is available for WG, it would be good not to have to replace the w= hole kernel, but only reload a patched WG module. Also: if there are ongoin= g sessions with some clients, how would sessions be re-established (afaik, = the current design is to simply ignore irrelevant messages)?

=
Thanks
--94eb2c065e60790789054612b68f--