David Ahern <[email protected]> writes: > On 12/9/19 5:49 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> I'd definitely be interested in this. Back in 2015, that was the plan. >> Then it took a long time to get to where we are now, and since then >> wg(8) has really evolved into its own useful thing. The easiest thing >> would be to move wg(8) wholesale into iproute2 like you suggested; >> that'd allow people to continue using their infrastructure and whatnot >> they've used for a long time now. A more nuanced approach would be >> coming up with a _parallel_ iproute2 tool with mostly the same syntax >> as wg(8) but as a subcommand of ip(8). Originally the latter appealed >> to me, but at this point maybe the former is better after all. I >> suppose something to consider is that wg(8) is actually a >> cross-platform tool now, with a unified syntax across a whole bunch of >> operating systems. But it's also just boring C. > > If wg is to move into iproute2, it needs to align with the other > commands and leverage the generic facilities where possible. ie., any > functionality that overlaps with existing iproute2 code to be converted > to use iproute2 code.
Thought that might be the case :) That means a re-implementation, then. In which case the question becomes whether it's better to do it as an 'ip' subcommand (or even just new parameters to 'ip link'), or a new top-level utility striving for compatibility with 'wg'. But that's mostly a UI issue... -Toke _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list [email protected] https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
