Rather than using the route setup logic in wg-quick, you could manually set the default gateway for (1) and add a more specific route for (2) in your route table. iirc (in Linux anyway...) the more specific route would take higher precedence.
--oa --oa On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 7:18 AM Johnny Utahh <mailman-wireguard....@johnnyutahh.com> wrote: > > More discussion here: > > https://www.reddit.com/r/WireGuard/comments/12oimvq/how_to_optimize_allowedips_overlapping_routes/ > > Clearly this is FAQ-ish kind of thing. It was a little hard for me to > easily find a reference for this kind of stuff. I realize the WireGuard > project may not consider it to be their responsibility to address such > things. > > ~J > > On 2023-04-16 10:06 AM, Johnny Utahh wrote: > > 1. wg0.conf: AllowedIPs = 0.0.0.0/0, ::0/0 --> higher-latency network > > 2. wg1.conf: AllowedIPs = 192.168.7.0/24 --> much-lower-latency network > > > > When enabling both of the devices/.conf's (listed as 1. and 2. above) > > concurrently, the #2 route travels over #1 (all starting up via > > 'wg-quick'). In this scenario I'd prefer #2 routing "bypasses" #1 and > > retain its (#2's) lower-latency path/network. Can this be done, somehow? > > > > I deduce the "route" for #2 changes when concurrently-enabling #1 > > because the #2-ping-latency immediately and dramatically increases to > > match #1-network's latency (and immediately reverts to #2's lower > > latency when #1 is disabled). This hurts my #2 network, badly. > > > > I'm running/testing the above on macOS v12.6.3 build 21G419, > > wireguard-go v0.0.20230223. If not on macOS, might this be feasible on > > Fedora or Ubuntu? > > > > I realize this might be a FAQ. I could not find any docs/resources to > > help after a brief search, so I'm posting here. > > > > [I'm not a networking expert, so I may be butchering various > > terminology, concepts. I apologize in advance for my ignorance.] > > > > ~J
