[WireGuard] Dual stack?

["Jörg Thalheim" <joerg@higgsboson.tk>]

On 2016-12-28 14:19, Maykel Moya wrote:
> Chiming in just to tell that my ip6 experience is a breeze since
> wireguard appeared.
>
> Right now I found myself advocating WG more as a simple-to-configure an=
d
> reliable-roaming ip6 tunnelling technology than a VPN itself.
>
> I've previously used HE (with a handcrafted mechanism to update my
> public ip4 endpoint whenever it changed) or SiXXs with a new daemon
> running in my system.
>
> With WG it's just setup and forget. Roaming is *reliable*, subjective
> performance is impressive (you've done the measures, I just browse and
> use services from the v6 internet without hassle).
>
> IMHO ip6 tunnelling is a(nother) good selling point of WG.
>
> Cheers,
> maykel
>
> ________

On the other hand switching between dual-stack/ipv4 only networks/ipv6 on=
ly networks
is problematic at the moment with the tools we have for roaming clients,
because wireguard only supports one endpoint of one address family at the=
 time.
This might be partially fixable in future by observing the availability o=
f default routes
in userspace (switch address family if it become unavailable). However th=
e optimal
solution would be something like the happy eyeballs protocol (https://too=
ls.ietf.org/html/rfc6555),
which is implemented in modern browser -
only because somebody got a v6/v4 default route does not mean it is also =
route able.
I don't know how the latter one would fit into the stateless concept of w=
ireguard.
I currently help myself by using an dedicated routing protocoll.