Hi Jason, First off--thanks for your work on WireGuard and just wanted to mention that your appearance on FLOSS Weekly put my over the edge to try out WireGuard.
> You might want to loosen these up a bit. Anyway, I've pulled it out of the > archives for quoting here: You are probably right. My over-aggression came from an increasing amount of spam that was spoofing from addresses in my domain. > Are you using wg-quick(8)?... Indeed. Mikma's reply pointed me in this direction for investigation. I had perused the wg man page, but not wg-quick's. I ended up doing exactly what you said (Table=off) and it did the trick. I suppose I was a victim of WireGuard's simplicity. I got it up and running so quickly that I didn't bother to dig into the individual components more than necessary at first. I ultimately may end up foregoing wg-quick, but either way I now understand the mechanics to accomplish what I want. On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <ja...@zx2c4.com> wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > I see some others on the wireguard mailing list have replied to a > ghost email. That is, I don't have the original that they're replying > to. Looking into it a bit further, it appears that reasonable spam > filters -- which includes but is not limited to gmail's -- will have > your mail immediately bounced, because of your strict dmarc entry > ("v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dm...@insaneirish.com"), since > mailing list servers like lists.zx2c4.com tend to "remail" things. You > might want to loosen these up a bit. Anyway, I've pulled it out of the > archives for quoting here: > >> Hi Folks, >> >> Getting my feet wet with wireguard and enjoying the simplicity and >> performance thus far. Nonetheless, I have a question about how the >> normal route selection process is being affected by what's configured >> for 'allowed-ips'. >> >> I set up a peer and configured 'allowed-ips' for 0.0.0.0/0, as I was >> going to be sending multiple routes over the peer link via BGP and >> didn't want to keep modifying it. However, even though my default >> route was over a different interface, this seemed to result in Linux >> trying to route default traffic over wg0 despite there not being a >> default route pointing to wg0. >> >> Specifically: >> >> $ sudo ip route show >> default via 10.199.199.1 dev wlan0 >> 10.111.111.0/24 dev wg0 proto kernel scope link src 10.111.111.100 >> 10.199.199.0/24 dev wlan0 proto kernel scope link src 10.199.199.131 >> >> By this route table, traffic to e.g. 126.96.36.199 should use 10.199.199.1. >> Packet captures were showing traffic trying to instead use wg0. Then I >> found this: >> >> $ sudo ip route get 188.8.131.52 >> 184.108.40.206 dev wg0 table 51820 src 10.111.111.100 >> cache >> >> Can someone please explain this behavior? >> >> Obligatory... $ uname -rvm >> 4.14.30-v7+ #1102 SMP Mon Mar 26 16:45:49 BST 2018 armv7l >> >> And... $ dpkg -l | grep wireguard >> ii wireguard 0.0.20180413-1 all >> fast, modern, secure kernel VPN tunnel (metapackage) >> ii wireguard-dkms 0.0.20180413-1 all >> fast, modern, secure kernel VPN tunnel (DKMS version) >> ii wireguard-tools 0.0.20180413-1 armhf >> fast, modern, secure kernel VPN tunnel (userland utilities) > > Are you using wg-quick(8)? If so, wg-quick will by default do special > things to sync up the allowed ips and the system routing table, which > includes some special case rule tricks for 0.0.0.0/0. It sounds like > you know what you're doing and don't actually want this behavior. For > this, you can simply specify Table=off in the [Interface] section. > This overrides the default value of Table=auto. Alternatively, you can > choose Table=main if you want those routes added to the default table > with no special rule tricks. Or, you can choose an arbitrary > named-table or number if you'd like to add the allowed ips to some > other routing table. The man page has info. > > Jason _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard