[Caution: Unfiltered thoughts and ideas, untested from mind to mail. WoT ahead.]
Hi Toke, I am on the road so can't test right now. Can you elaborate on babel a bit? Would you be able to use non-link-local multicast addresses? Let's call it "routed multicast" for now. Maybe related/similar case: DHCPv6 https://github.com/openwrt/luci/issues/854#issuecomment-261588333 This message is probably not much of help. However, it made me thinking about deriving solicited node address from the peer public keys would be theoretically possible (nothing like that is implemented and may not even be a wise idea at all). In a centralized setup (one server many road warrios/sites) this should theoretically straightforward. Not having multicast on VPN links is an inconvenience, especially with all the zeroconf and mdns devices in our networks sometimes. But multicast on VPN links can be a pain, too. One thing you could do, although not very clean, is to unicast-announce to all /128 IP addresses from your allowd_ips per peer. If babel can do that or can be modifed to do so. /128 are often the addresses of the wg-interface on the other end. However, keep in mind that this is a wild guess and not a clean solution. Another thing I can't try right now but may be worth playing with is assigning addresses from the ff-range and see what happens. How well does the kernel like it and how will wireguard threat these addresses. I never tried. A all-nodes multicast will probably not scale well in more complex setups (some people run many peers on one interface, imagine what happens then...). However, solicited-node multicast based on a 24bit hash (blake?) of the public key should reduce the amount of packets that need to be sent. I wonder how reliable it is to generate EUI64 out of the public keys and thus provide link-local addresses without any need for allowed-ips at all for tunnel setup. Wouldn't that be just awesome? Multicast... keeps me thinking. I'll post again if I come up with anything that might help. Cheers, Dan PS: Don't take anything for granted. I wrote this done while thinking about it. Better trust Jason's words, he knows it right. > On 20 Dec 2016, at 15:53, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Does Wireguard has a notion of multicast? I would like to eventually > replace my current VPN setup with wireguard. I currently run Tinc in > switch (layer 2) mode, and run the Babel routing protocol on top. > > Babel announces itself via link-local multicast to everyone on the link. > Does this work with wireguard? I guess the equivalent semantics would be > "send this packet to all known peers"... > > -Toke > _______________________________________________ > WireGuard mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list [email protected] https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
