On 16/11/16 15:49, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Dan Lüdtke <m...@danrl.com> wrote: >> Hi Jason, >> >>> I guess I could provide IPv6 connectivity, but.... why? It's a demo. >> >> Because it is a demo of a brand new protocol, showing how it can be used >> with legacy versions payload and transport protocol. I find that odd, but as >> I understand we have contradicting point of views on IP protocols. > > I see what you mean. That's a fair point. We might as well give people > an opportunity for trying things out, indeed.
Chiming in just to tell that my ip6 experience is a breeze since wireguard appeared. Right now I found myself advocating WG more as a simple-to-configure and reliable-roaming ip6 tunnelling technology than a VPN itself. I've previously used HE (with a handcrafted mechanism to update my public ip4 endpoint whenever it changed) or SiXXs with a new daemon running in my system. With WG it's just setup and forget. Roaming is *reliable*, subjective performance is impressive (you've done the measures, I just browse and use services from the v6 internet without hassle). IMHO ip6 tunnelling is a(nother) good selling point of WG. Cheers, maykel _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard