Re: [PATCH] wg-quick: linux: add support for nft and prefer it

[Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch>]

On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 4:54 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:52 PM Jordan Glover
> Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 3:48 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld Jason@zx2c4.com wrote:
> >
> > > If nft(8) is installed, use it. These rules should be identical to the
> > > iptables-restore(8) ones, with the advantage that cleanup is easy
> > > because we use custom table names.
> >
> > I wonder if nft should be used only if iptables isn't installed instead.
> > Nowadays iptables has nft backend which I believe is default and will
> > translate iptables rules to nft automatically. On my system iptables rules
> > from wg-quck are already shown in "nft list ruleset".
> > I'm not sure if this work in reverse - are nft rules automatically translated
> > to iptables and shown in iptables-save? If not then using iptables of available
> > seems more versatile for the job.
>
> iptables rules and nftables rules can co-exist just fine, without any
> translation needed. Indeed if your iptables is symlinked to
> iptables-nft, then you'll insert nftables rules when you try to insert
> iptables rules, but it really doesn't matter much either way (AFAIK).
> I figured I'd prefer nftables over iptables if available because I
> presume, without any metrics, that nftables is probably faster and
> slicker or something.

As I said before, my concern is more about people being fully aware of state
of their firewall rather than if it technically works.

Jordan
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard