Re: Continued use of `wg-quick save` and SaveConfig=true?

[Adrian Larsen <alarsen@maidenheadbridge.com>]

Hi Jason,

1) From a manual operation point of view, I feel more comfortable if an 
Operator uses:

# wg set wg0 peer ... allowed-ips ...
# wg-quick save wg0

rather than editing manually the config file.

In case the Wire Guard is running multiple peers with production 
traffic, I think an Operator can do less damage using the commands if 
something goes wrong.

2) From automation point of view, still I think that is easy to use the 
commands (on an script):

# wg set wg0 peer ... allowed-ips ...
# wg-quick save wg0

rather than using "sed" or "awk" to modify the config file.

My 2 cents.

Adrian

On 04/01/2021 16:16, Maarten de Vries wrote:
> On 03-01-2021 20:59, Chris Osicki wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 03:37:09PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was thinking recently that most people have switched from a model of
>>> updating the runtime configuration and then reading that back into a
>>> config file, to editing the config file and then syncing that with the
>>> runtime config. In other words, people have moved from doing:
>>>
>>> # wg set wg0 peer ... allowed-ips ...
>>> # wg-quick save wg0
>>>
>>> To doing:
>>>
>>> # vim /etc/wireguard/wg0.conf
>>> # wg syncconf wg0 <(wg-quick strip wg0)
>>>
>>> I think this is mostly a positive change too in terms of reliability.
>>> Reading back the runtime configuration was always a bit hit or miss,
>>> and I suspect that more times than not people have been confused by
>>> SaveConfig=true.
>>>
>>> That raises the question: are there good uses left for SaveConfig=true
>>> and `wg-quick save` that warrant keeping the feature around?
>>> Temporarily caching a roamed endpoint IP, perhaps, but how helpful is
>>> that?
>>>
>>> I haven't thought too deeply about this in order to be wedded to one
>>> outcome over the other yet, but seeing some confusion today, again, in
>>> #wireguard over the feature made me wonder.
>>>
>>> Any opinions on this? Any one on this list actively use this feature
>>> and see replacements for it (e.g. syncconf) as clearly inferior?
>>>
>>> Jason
>> Hi Jason
>>
>> Being an old fashioned Unix admin, ~30 years spent in this job, I 
>> vote for the traditional way of doing it:
>> change the config file and let the application reread it.
>> I think the KISS principle is still valid ;-)
>
> I totally agree. Reloading the config file is much nicer :)
>
> I also don't need to save roaming endpoints. All WireGuard tunnels I 
> use have at-least one side with a fixed endpoint. And if that's not 
> the case I imagine you probably need a more complicated solution than 
> wg-quick.
>
>
>> Thanks for the excellent software, Jason!
>
> I also totally agree with this. WireGuard has made my life a lot 
> easier :)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Maarten
>