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=-0.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 7226AC43603 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:06:19 +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 0A3672073D for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:06:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.ch header.i=@protonmail.ch header.b="DWjFAcPU" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0A3672073D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=protonmail.ch Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 2af31ff7; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:05:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 8559232b for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:05:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-40140.protonmail.ch (mail-40140.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.140]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 7adfa4e4 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:05:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:05:44 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.ch; s=default; t=1575997549; bh=y3QXUIb3e7UokqcMh/ni0woO9EsClTGQUUFagvASPjE=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From; b=DWjFAcPUXJ932vJcgMltvOVhLGTsIbNcVDZDLPvt8Z9ylX45eX5+gFpSdfbcqH7VO 6I/PCceoGCAnB4HBdWJ7D2tb6QVyXYPNAoF/rzlM3v3tL3SWG5nLSqX4ljQjJVY7R7 04OjUJ2gKSLQJjamE/6+/OKZC5+9Y4ehOGjr/+QI= To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" From: Jordan Glover Subject: Re: [PATCH] wg-quick: linux: add support for nft and prefer it Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20191210154850.577745-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> Feedback-ID: QEdvdaLhFJaqnofhWA-dldGwsuoeDdDw7vz0UPs8r8sanA3bIt8zJdf4aDqYKSy4gJuZ0WvFYJtvq21y6ge_uQ==:Ext:ProtonMail MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "jwollrath@web.de" , "wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com" X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jordan Glover List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 4:54 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld 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