On 25.09.2018 18:29, Breus Blaauwendraad wrote: > Could someone tell whether or not TCP would be a future additional > option for WireGuard, and why (not)?
Which of the umpteen available/possible ways of encapsulating UDP packets in TCP (and possibly obfuscating them in some way) would you want Wireguard to natively implement? The answer is simple: None of them. Bind to localhost, and use a separate program for forwarding UDP packets. Also: Any performance gain from supporting TCP natively (as opposed to going through userspace) is easily dwarfed by the fact that congestion control requires occasionally dropping packets – specifically, the packets queued to the TCP socket. TCP cannot do that. Even more complexity in the kernel? not likely. -- -- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
