Re: Policy-based routing

Hi, > Is it possible to achieve that with wireguard? You need to set up multiple wireguard interfaces (on different ports of course). Then you can use traditional Linux routing techniques. -- -- Matthias Urlichs ___ WireGuard mailing list

Policy-based routing

Hello, I'm trying to set up a policy-based routing on a wireguard instance. I didn't want to call it server, because it acts more like a proxy. Let's say I have 6 peers plus this wireguard server. Peer 2  Peer 3   Peer 4  \/   \/   \/ __ | | |

Re: Another roaming problem

"Jason A. Donenfeld" writes: > Hi Toke, > > That all makes sense. I'm going out of town extremely soon, but I'll > fix this when I've returned. I have a pretty good idea of what's > required. If you're curious to try it yourself, just try removing > invocations of

Re: Another roaming problem

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > And leaving it running a bit more, there is also a call from > expired_retransmit_handshake: Yep! These are the two calls in timers.c. ___ WireGuard mailing list

Re: Another roaming problem

Hi Toke, That all makes sense. I'm going out of town extremely soon, but I'll fix this when I've returned. I have a pretty good idea of what's required. If you're curious to try it yourself, just try removing invocations of socket_clear_peer_endpoint_src inside timers.c. Jason

UDP Socks5 Proxy

Hi, i would like to have one node using wireguard which is behind a proxy. i thought one could use some iptables magic to catch the udp packages and redirect those to use a socks5 proxy. would that be feasable? what piece of software could i use to turn the udp packages into a sock5 complient