On 18/12/17 14:29, Nicholas Joll wrote:
> To Whom It May Concern
>
> What happened. (1) On a system on which Wireguard was working, I used
> the 'TimeShift' program to restore Linux Mint from backup - twice, on
> one occasion including within the restore a reinstall of Grub and
> rebuild of initra
On 10/01/18 07:09, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> systemd-networkd is shipped (but by default disabled) in the systemd
> package itself.
>
> At the moment, wireguard-dkms (the kernel module package) Recommends:
> wireguard-tools (which supplies wg(8)), which i'd write as:
>
> 0) Recommends: wire
On 19/01/18 13:21, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> The users' issue seems mostly like an Ubuntu problem: they build _all,
> _amd64, and _x86 immediately, but delay the other architectures until
> later.
Just for pedantic correctness, packages are built as and when builders
[1] become available (+/- so
On 20/10/2018 21:59, Lucian Cristian wrote:
> updating the wireguard module on systemd based linux
How are you updating Wireguard, and on which Linux distro?
> gives
>
> Warning: The unit file, source configuration file or drop-ins of
> wg-quick@wg0.service changed on disk. Run 'systemctl daemo
Hi!
In testing out the new kernel<4.1 support I've hit a build failure:
> In file included from include/net/ip_tunnels.h:5:0,
> from
> /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/0.0.20170409-1~14.04.york0.1/build/compat/compat.h:62,
> from :0:
> include/linux/netdevice.h:1890:43:
On 11/04/17 12:26, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hey Jonathon,
>
> 3.13, as released from kernel.org, does not have this function, which
> is why it's "defined" in the compat.h. It appears you're using
> somebody's insane backport. It wouldn't surprise me if Canonical
> decided to try and maintain 3
On 16/04/17 12:06, Ryan Riley wrote:
> The i386 wireguard-tools package on the PPA for Ubuntu Xenial doesn't
> actually contain any of the binaries, just documentation.
It's not just i386 - each of the arm and ppc64 packages are also missing
binaries.
Debian's packages (and my testing backports b
On 02/05/17 15:51, B wrote:
> it is missing a few lines explaining that what's appears a "weird"
> network notation has in fact 2 purposes, setting the VPN interface IP
> address and the segment width.
Do you mean 192.168.88.0/24 ? That's the standard annotation for IP
subnets (e.g. 10.0.0.0/1
On 04/05/17 19:41, Ryan Whelan wrote:
> How do I set the src port for peer 'B' so all traffic from B will come from a
> predicable source port?
I don't think that's how network stacks work... ?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Hi Jean-Yves,
On 09/05/17 23:32, B wrote:
> 1- I solved the LAN being unreachable apart the endpoint and the internet
>being completely unreachable with an iptables rule:
>iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -s 10.11.12.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
>is this right? (if not, why?)
I don't
On 26/05/17 18:26, Steve Pagan wrote:
> I cannot download the required packages to my system. I get a 404 error:
>
> W: Failed to fetch
> http://ppa.launchpad.net/wireguard/wireguard/ubuntu/dists/precise/main/source/Sources
> 404 Not Found
>
> W: Failed to fetch
> http://ppa.launchpad.net/wireg
On 26/05/17 21:54, Egbert Verhage wrote:
> Hey Steve,
>
> That is because in the beging of the ppa repo we only had support for
> kernel >4.1.
>
> On snapshot: 0.0.20170409 we got support for 3.16, 3.14, 3.12, 3.10.
> And precise has kernel 3.2 (OLD!) and since April 28, 2017 precise is
> eol.
J
On 08/07/17 03:26, raul wrote:
> 4. The Wireguard server is a single point of failure in a star topology.
> If the server host goes down your network goes down with it. How can we
> add more resilience in a simple way? A backup server in L2 with
> identical keys and a floating internal IP?
I have
On 09/08/17 00:16, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> 3) not having any headers installed
>
...
>
> Any thoughts on this pattern?
>
I suspect this would be a packaging issue - packages that build modules
should depend on whatever headers (etc.) that are necessary for building
the module. I can't think
On 09/08/17 00:30, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> For (1) and (2), though, what do you think of the warning I've added
> to Gentoo? That's what I meant by asking for thoughts on "this
> pattern" -- the whole thing with comparing running kernel and
> compiled-for-kernel and comparing loaded-module-vers
On 06/11/17 21:41, Ferris Ellis wrote:
> I know the project is still young but was
> wondering if anyone on the mailing list had started using WireGuard in
> production? And, if so, if they’d be willing to share some details about
> their use case and experience?
>
I use on on several high-traffi
On 26/11/17 00:25, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> I'll try my best to write the Arabic letters like that; seems like a
> fun challenge.
Remember: right-to-left. ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@
On 22/11/2021 17:20, Robert Dahlem wrote:
The idea behind this is to have redundant tunnels. Let's say a Wireguard
client has a preferred server and a secondary server. Packets should be
routed through the preferred router while that tunnel is established and
through the secondary server when the
18 matches
Mail list logo
