"Jason A. Donenfeld" <ja...@zx2c4.com> writes: > Hey Toke, > > For incoming packets, this would be strange behavior, since it's > listening on v4 and v6.
Yeah, I think the incoming side is fine (it works over both v4 and v6 as long as I have connectivity on the other end). > For outgoing packets, if wireguard thinks it should be sending to a v6 > address, then that's what it will do. Right, so it's not just me, this doesn't actually work currently. Cool ;) > One way to fix this would be to re-resolve DNS from userspace, which > is a bit ugly. Another way would be to simply store the last v4 > address, and fall back to that if it can't establish a route for the > v6 address. And yet another way -- if simplicity is desired -- would > be to do nothing (the status quo), and not build legacy semantics into > something new. Any opinions on this? While I can appreciate the simplicity of doing nothing, I think seamless roaming even across v4/v6 is a pretty killer feature to have. It turns wireguard into a "universal connectivity" tool that you can just enable and forget about, without having to worry about calls dropping when roaming, etc. I think the idea of configuring both v4 and v6 on startup and caching them is a reasonable idea. Maybe even configure all available addresses when doing the initial DNS lookup? Or is that awkward to do? -Toke _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard