From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: geno+dev@fireorbit.de Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id e754beb2 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 18:03:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cetus.h.sum7.eu (cetus.h.sum7.eu [5.9.250.38]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 8700b091 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 18:02:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost-ipv6 [127.0.0.1]) by cetus.h.sum7.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134D462227 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 20:04:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cetus.h.sum7.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cetus.h.sum7.eu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id QZxUlmrcG_cT for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 20:04:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:2a01:4f8:160:44d0:1337:e7db:f329:bb5e] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:4f8:160:44d0:1337:e7db:f329:bb5e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by cetus.h.sum7.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 20:04:55 +0200 (CEST) To: WireGuard mailing list From: Martin/Geno Subject: own interface address and peer address in same Subnet Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 20:04:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="esw2b5nQdfwbBBl9ySCySXFVsqNzxib8R" List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --esw2b5nQdfwbBBl9ySCySXFVsqNzxib8R Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="OeEs1FG8lsAv2tWtwMtPkbSeqASigBik4"; protected-headers="v1" From: Martin/Geno To: WireGuard mailing list Message-ID: Subject: own interface address and peer address in same Subnet --OeEs1FG8lsAv2tWtwMtPkbSeqASigBik4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, i use at my wireguard 'server' ndp_proxy to announce - thats the reason why i could use the same interface address subnet, then the endpoint is i= n. Example client configuration: [Interface] Address =3D 2a01:1337::3/64 [Peer] AllowedIPs =3D 0.0.0.0/0,::/0 PersistentKeepalive =3D 25 Endpoint =3D [2a01:1337::2]:48574 Is there a solution for this 'bug' - there should be a validation and exclude of endpoint addresses on the routing table fwmark A nice day Geno --OeEs1FG8lsAv2tWtwMtPkbSeqASigBik4-- --esw2b5nQdfwbBBl9ySCySXFVsqNzxib8R Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEExU2ivF9mZhtsbkpbnX08a/9gDGoFAlsNlkUACgkQnX08a/9g DGoaLhAAsw7105UEvq/H6+TH9tf8Bvj8MEHUW/JRhlUAGt5UIVfTvCvJsN8JkWAx gixtSoPuVaFM1K9jz+D8mlgmt0xSt/ZDn74O2HBJfelOyABdX0rp9p160Cscf0J4 0y249326FFotq8ks9/eSAerLRcHbnTp2hr1M0dZtCApBqdtDOKJhCWmMLZgwEfg4 uZfNM55XcHkSPjG4RQX+I0k4k8zzuvWsV+BphU72xFZIvs23wOelrOrp2jISjjkk d+piYFBuRf76sdEmHr7hH8+zdHg/3xMwN4EhIL2Mh/ah4OhU2EDY+UK+MtTjL0m7 2GkCMQK3DZlfFBrYdQxZHGxBG/7q6RbilZ35rcCR3BBysr7Lq0L171pMuHmQMgwh dUK3v5/Du5QBmHlQ8cW5sH79Ulxb7GKbDJuoILVNozhfqf6Pvckt8Sz/JmaUcJ19 DSyRJuqMjlFY8ZBIniJ8d92ggLAYKk9OuzPE2sXC2N9RJMsKBkRoSUf24RabIiqL NBfbyysmtZWp3QfSviM56SjpYRsvKtonL1HVFUGrxIyfrWIEnVgzRbToh7lANkV/ FdfYqSxI1N830dN23qTZ1bzRnpZ0W1PsDrvqjtkajr3fI5JntzZvcfm6rjiM5sFg LJmGije71+3YsZo9oP96QZ1wI1E1I2GkS6rlihcGnovmBF1X81E= =9JwA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --esw2b5nQdfwbBBl9ySCySXFVsqNzxib8R--