Hi,
> One of the things we'll be investigating is whether it's best to
> derive a v6 address from a public key or whether it's best to make
> these separate/unrelated and share them alongside the public key.
> While the former is much more elegant, a significant problem is
> choosing the right beh
Hi Jason,
Sure, I would be happy to help!
@Martin: based on your name and some quick googling, I assume you are
German. If you are in Munich, let me know, we could meet and discuss about
your gsoc topic in real life.
Best,
Christophe-Marie
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 00:25 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
Hi Chirstophe,
Thanks for writing this. Very cool work. As part of GSoC this summer,
Martin (CC'd) is going to be working on a dynamic provisioning
protocol over IPv6. One of the things we'll be investigating is
whether it's best to derive a v6 address from a public key or whether
it's best to mak
On 04/12/2018 01:42 PM, Christophe-Marie Duquesne wrote:
Long story short, you need a proper central server that will find the
next ip address, or you need to stick to ipv6 (and in that case the
address space makes it pointless to do that check).
I think one option is to use the DHCPv4-over-
On 12.04.2018 13:42, Christophe-Marie Duquesne wrote:
> And for certain reasons I prefer to use ip4.
I'd recommend a closer look at those reasons.
In other words: whatever problem prevents you from using IPv6, get them
fixed.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
i once had written a script for some openWRT (lede) Routers for Freifunk,
first of all, take ipV6 inside your tunnel, and mix localnet V6
Addresses with the MAC - this way you get a very distinct pair of V6
Address and Key
This assumes that a Server has fixed ip and key.
keyline in Setup is this
u
Weird. Once again, I did not receive this answer and saw it on the
online archive.
from https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2018-April/002598.html:
> > I could add this to the script, but I figured that for the number of
> > peers I have and for the network ranges I am using, it is utterly
> from https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2018-April/002595.html:
> > PS: you write that the "tool does not handle collisions", but does it
> > recognize and/or warn about them? I.e. if a peer with the newly
> > suggested IP exists already - will it warn?
>
> No, no detection is attempte
Hum, I thought this thread had gone unanswered because nothing ever
reached my inbox, but I just found out about the answers browsing the
archive:
from https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2018-April/002594.html:
> I'm interested in it being integrated into WG, as it is exactly what I
> ask
PS: you write that the "tool does not handle collisions", but does it
recognize and/or warn about them? I.e. if a peer with the newly
suggested IP exists already - will it warn?
For automation it would be nice to have some sort of "force" or
"keep-trying" options, so the tool regenerates the keys
Hi Christophe-Marie,
I'm interested in it being integrated into WG, as it is exactly what I
asked for in this list several weeks ago.
Thank you!
On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 14:32 +0200, Christophe-Marie Duquesne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In an old thread [1], danrl suggested deriving node addresses from the
11 matches
Mail list logo
