Tim Weippert <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Matthias, > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:21:44AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: >> Hello list, >> >> Assume a branch office with two uplinks to the Internet that wants to >> use WG to talk to the main office, using both of these uplinks in >> parallel (assuming they're both up) for better uplink speed (and for >> redundancy if they aren't). Now the obvious idea is to create two WG >> interfaces on each side, and add a couple of firewall rules to make sure >> that packets fwmarked 1 go out on the first uplink, and so on. >> >> That's the easy part. The hard part is how to teach the kernel to load >> balance its default route between the WG interfaces. I tried to use a >> libteam or bonding interface to tie them together, but apparently WG >> isn't Ethernet, so that doesn't work. >> >> I thought about using a GRE tunnel, but tunnels have fixed endpoint >> addresses – somehow I don't think it'd be a good idea to create two >> wireguard interfaces with the same IP address … and I don't really want >> to do heavy-handed address mangling on every packet. Losing all >> connectivity whenever I happen to flush my firewall tables doesn't >> appeal to me. > > Maybe you can use some kind of dynamic routing approach here. Use FRR, > Quagga or Bird with e.g. OSPF and ECMP ( Equal Cost Multipath) to utilize > both links. (practically you can also have two default routes with the > same metric and this should do a round robin fashioned loadbalancing)
You can add ECMP routes with 'ip route' via the 'nexthop' parameter. See 'man ip-route'. -Toke _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list [email protected] https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
