On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 4:54 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <ja...@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:52 PM Jordan Glover > golden_mille...@protonmail.ch wrote: > > > On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 3:48 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com > > wrote: > > > > > If nft(8) is installed, use it. These rules should be identical to the > > > iptables-restore(8) ones, with the advantage that cleanup is easy > > > because we use custom table names. > > > > I wonder if nft should be used only if iptables isn't installed instead. > > Nowadays iptables has nft backend which I believe is default and will > > translate iptables rules to nft automatically. On my system iptables rules > > from wg-quck are already shown in "nft list ruleset". > > I'm not sure if this work in reverse - are nft rules automatically > > translated > > to iptables and shown in iptables-save? If not then using iptables of > > available > > seems more versatile for the job. > > iptables rules and nftables rules can co-exist just fine, without any > translation needed. Indeed if your iptables is symlinked to > iptables-nft, then you'll insert nftables rules when you try to insert > iptables rules, but it really doesn't matter much either way (AFAIK). > I figured I'd prefer nftables over iptables if available because I > presume, without any metrics, that nftables is probably faster and > slicker or something. As I said before, my concern is more about people being fully aware of state of their firewall rather than if it technically works. Jordan _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
