Hi Baptiste, > On 11 Jan 2017, at 10:58, Baptiste Jonglez <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Will, > > > There have been backwards-incompatible changes recently: can you make sure > that you use the exact same wireguard version on all peers?
I was using the same version (Debian package 0.0.20161230-1 from Unstable). However my bug occured between the package version and the compiled version from 0.0.20170105 . So I'll retry with both same kernel modules. Because at least for that try, I have a mismatch. But for my previous experiments all the version were the same. Additional question, is it better to use one interface with a big subnet and multiple remote peers or an interface by peer with a /30 or a /31 ? Cheers, Will > >> Any clue, ideas, else ? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Will >> >>> On 03 Jan 2017, at 09:52, Will van Gulik <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm trying to use multiple wireguard tunnel in one VM at the same time, but >>> it seems that only the first two I configured are working. I'm currently >>> trying with 5 interfaces, I see the incoming packet in tcpdump but no >>> reaction of the destination host with all the wg interfaces. >>> >>> I'm not sure there is a limitation on that, I could totally have missed >>> that. Should I use 1 interface with multiple peers rather than multiple >>> interface ? >>> >>> I'm testing that on a Debian with 4.8.7-1, running on a KVM host. >>> >>> Any insight ? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Will >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WireGuard mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WireGuard mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard >> <https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard>
_______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list [email protected] https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
