0.0.20171017? Or do I get something new? I
tried to read all changelog since 20171017 but I could not identify any
obvious fix.
Is there anything I can do?
Regards,
--
Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
luizl...@gmail.com
___
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@
at.
Regards,
--
Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
luizl...@gmail.com
___
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
Thanks Jason,
Yes, something very similar to tinc. I imagine having two or more
static/known peers (redundancy) configured on every node. Once connected,
they discover the others.
It's good to know there is a GSoC for something like it.
--
Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
luizl...@gmai
ugh it.
I imagine something like:
Node A: hey node B, I noticed that you are sending traffic to another
remote node (node C). You can continue to send traffic through me but, in
parallel, could you please try to contact node C directly? It is currently
using ip x.x.x.x and its pubkey is aaaaaa.
--
em is related to a change in WAN ip address (ADSL
never reuse previous addresses).
Regards,
Luiz
Em seg, 16 de abr de 2018 às 14:13, Jason A. Donenfeld
escreveu:
> Hi Luiz,
>
> Did this problem ever disappear?
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
--
Luiz Angelo Daros
hat share peer info, allowing a mesh vpn
> --
Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
luizl...@gmail.com
___
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
matically by wg, better if required by
kernel interface or even set up by kernel module.
2) interface identification can be derived from pubkey with a simple
algorithm. It does not need to be a secure hash.
Regards,
---
Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
luizl...@gmail.com
it be better to have it provided by wireguard but
disabled by default? If the change don't kill a kitty, it will not
harm the security as users are already doing the same but through a
much harder way.
My 2 cents.
---
Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
luizl...@gmail.com
Yes, wg is not a request/response protocol. But it does have some
state. Can't wireguard remember the last local address that each peer
sent traffic? It is just like the tracking already in use for peer ip
address. If there is an "last address" it would be nice if we could
hint the kernel to use th
protocol wireguard is using and the normal
wireguard headers.
Regards,
---
Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
luizl...@gmail.com
> Hi,
Hi Daniel,
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 04:58:40PM +0200, Marek Küthe wrote:
> > PPPoE adds 8 bytes of overhead so that an MTU of 1432 can be used. I
> > also have to do this at home with my DSL line for example.
> > The MTU should be set on each side (on both peers) for this to work.
>
> Oh,
> > I could dynamically add firewall rules to clamp MSS per authorized_ips
> > but, theoretically, the kernel has all the info to do that
> > automatically. I wonder if MSSFIX could detect the best MTU for a
> > specific address through the wireguard. It should consider the
> > peer-to-peer PMTU, t
Hello,
I did some proof-of-concept tests and got nice results. Here is my
current script (https://github.com/luizluca/wireguard-ipv6-pmtu)
It runs as a shell script and updates allowed_ips routes (ipv4 and
ipv6) when there is a cached PMTU to that endpoint (or the local
interface is using a small
13 matches
Mail list logo
