On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:46 AM Riccardo Paolo Bestetti
wrote:
>
> I laughed in my head. :)
>
> For what my two cents are worth, L2 WireGuard would have its (limited) use
> cases, but nothing beats having a simple and effective mono-purpose protocol
> like we do now. Everything else can be
On 27.08.2018 16:46, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti wrote:
> The tunnel could be initially established with no tunnel addresses,
It could also be initially established with one non-forwarded tunnel
address, allowing you to converse through the tunnel with standard
tools, and without adding unnecessary
I laughed in my head. :)
For what my two cents are worth, L2 WireGuard would have its (limited) use
cases, but nothing beats having a simple and effective mono-purpose protocol
like we do now. Everything else can be solved with OpenVPN or appropriate SDN
techniques running on top of WG.
And
On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 15:32:49 +0200
netrav...@gmail.com wrote:
> When using multicast over WireGuard, would it not be more viable to use
> an extra encapsulation layer to run multicast inside of?
>
> I am specifically thinking of running either GRE or L2TPv3 over wgX.
I know people run VXLAN or
Hello,
I am trying to get IPv6 link-local IPs and route advertisements to work over
WG. The reason is not for the usual case of address autoconfiguration, but to
use RA as a dynamic routing protocol of sorts, as it can distribute routes --
or in case of WG (where routes need to be static in
