Re: Seeking suggestions for a WG port to use with restrictive public wifi networks

And also 4433 which is used by DTLS https://wiki.wireshark.org/DTLS --dad On 20/11/18 9:53 AM, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote: On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:33 PM, John wrote: Should I stick with the "standard" udp service ports for my trial-and-error based approach? Wikipedia has an article that lists

Re: package seems to have lost netifrc script

I'm running default  stable netifrc-0.5.1. I guess this is in the 0.6.X series.. (~amd64) I'll keep running stable thanks and copy the script as required. Thanks, john On 05/08/18 10:08, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 12:07 AM John Huttley wrote: Gentoo needs a script

package seems to have lost netifrc script

Gentoo needs a script in /lib/netifrc/net  for network integration with openrc. This exists in wireguard-0.0.20180625 not in wireguard-0.0.20180802  or git. The package is built with "module tools". What happened? --john ___ WireGuard mailing

Android Update wants Camera Permissions

I just updated. It wanted Camera Access. Odd.. --John ___ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

Recommended Mini-VM image?

Hi team, I want to run WG in a VM under windows with Virtual box or such. I could use my Gentoo image, buts its 25Gb. Does anyone have an "appliance" image? Regards, -Dad ___ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com

Android Configuration File

I'm just trying to set up the app to talk to my server. Its unclear what a "configuration file" is. I've presumed it was wg-quick compatible. wg1.conf [Interface]     Address = 192.168.94.13/32   PrivateKey = SNIP [Peer]   PublicKey = SNIP   Endpoint = gatekeeper.hisdad.org:6678

RFE: Name of peer in configuration

Hi we can can put comments into  configuration files but on wg show these are lost Request: Add name or Description or comment field to the [peer] stanza [Peer]   PublicKey = OYmTNf2RpiIBW4=   Endpoint = gatekeeper.hisdad.org:999   AllowedIPs = 192.168.94.0/24, 192.168.95.0/24  

MTU

Hi, Did we have to configure our interfaces with a reduced MTU (1417) after this last update? I've getting results reminiscent of the need for MSS clamping. Connects ok, timeouts on transfer etc. --John ___ WireGuard mailing list

Re: Odd length headers and alignment

I think an extra byte would be a great idea. We can use that in the future to implement a user space IUnknown/O_PONIES end to end negotiation --John On 8/12/2016 7:11 a.m., Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hey guys, > > Wireguard data packets have a 1 byte type, a 4 byte index, an 8 byte > nonce,

Re: DMVPM appreciation

Hmm... Really good high level theory ... > Don't forget we need two more things: > * A --> C (over UDP) > * C --> A (over UDP) >Throw a few weird NAT/PAT and other ACLs in between and try again. In one direction there is no need, because that's how we established the tunnel. See below, we

DMVPM appreciation

When Wireguard was first announced, there were several comments like "Can you do DMVPM?" So What is DMVPN? Do we care? Can we do it better? DMVPN http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/security/dynamic-multipoint-vpn-dmvpn/index.html Is a Cisco product to lets spokes create spoke-to-spoke links

[WireGuard] Debugging AllowedIps

Hi Team, I've had success with AllowedIPs = 0.0.0.0/0 but not otherwise. Is there a way of get some debug output on this? Regards, John ___ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com http://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard