Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WireGuard is submitted for Linux kernel inclusion

marc.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 189 posts

Re: WireGuard is submitted for Linux kernel inclusion

#31

Post by StavrosK »

louiskottmann wrote: post #26
StavrosK wrote: post #11

I started using Wireguard two days ago to access my home LAN and love it, I can access everything with one command, as if I'm home. The only problem I have with it is the complete lack of documentation. The tutorial refers to a configuration file, but nowhere on the site does it tell you how to write one. It also took me days to set up what I think is a common use case, logging in to a server/router at home and acces…

I actually gave up after trying for a while. They mention an "easy" way to do traditional VPN usage, but it never worked, and various blogs have differing opinions on how to properly do that. I wish there was better hands-on documentation for WG, but I guess it really is an addition to iptables and thus restricted to people versed in that area. Which I am not. I do intend to try again though.

Here you go, plug and play:

https://www.pastery.net/gvfyub+hacbne/#gvfyub

Use with `wg-quick up ` and you're done. I don't know why this isn't in the documentation, it strikes me as what 99% of users want, and the other 1% knows how to do whatever they need.

Re: WireGuard is submitted for Linux kernel inclusion

#32

Post by StavrosK »

alias_neo wrote: post #25
StavrosK wrote: post #11

I started using Wireguard two days ago to access my home LAN and love it, I can access everything with one command, as if I'm home. The only problem I have with it is the complete lack of documentation. The tutorial refers to a configuration file, but nowhere on the site does it tell you how to write one. It also took me days to set up what I think is a common use case, logging in to a server/router at home and acces…

I agree. I've been using Wireguard for about 6 months now. The quick start is great for getting a quick overview but it doesn't really document properly how a configuration file should be made. There is no real detail about how a wg-quick config differs from a wg one, and they're not compatible; it'll complain about unknown keys/values or something if you use a wg-quick config with extra firewall rules and the like w…

> it'll complain about unknown keys/values or something if you use a wg-quick config with extra firewall rules and the like with plain wg.

Really? I didn't even know that, thanks.

> if you modify your config file and down/up with wg-quick it'll delete anything you entered in your config

Ouch. Yeah, these things definitely need to be documented, I had no idea about this either. I would also like to see an easier way to configure authentications, having them in the same file as the config means I can't version control it, share it easily, etc.

Re: WireGuard is submitted for Linux kernel inclusion

#33

Post by jwilk »

esistgut wrote: post #28
jwilk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you get these $20/y deals?

arubacloud.com has KVM based VPSes starting at 1€/month.

https://www.arubacloud.com/vps/virtual-private-server-range.... says "based on VMware technology". Doesn't sound like KVM.

Re: WireGuard is submitted for Linux kernel inclusion

#35

Post by kanox »

foobarbazetc wrote: post #13

The biggest issue we’ve encountered with WireGuard is that it doesn’t (yet?) support GRO, which means the kernel doesn’t combine multiple sequential TCP frames inside the tunnel into one before presenting it to a program. This increases RTT by a significant amount.

That doesn't sound right, GRO is a performance optimization but shouldn't be required for interactive response.

Sounds like what you need is TCP_NODELAY?

Re: WireGuard is submitted for Linux kernel inclusion

#36

Post by [deleted] »

StavrosK wrote: post #11

I started using Wireguard two days ago to access my home LAN and love it, I can access everything with one command, as if I'm home. The only problem I have with it is the complete lack of documentation. The tutorial refers to a configuration file, but nowhere on the site does it tell you how to write one. It also took me days to set up what I think is a common use case, logging in to a server/router at home and acces…

[deleted]

Re: WireGuard is submitted for Linux kernel inclusion

#37

Post by porjo »

nialv7 wrote: post #30

They are trying to get a completely new crypto interface into the kernel, and they are posting the patches to linux-netdev mailing list. This is not gonna fly.

> This is not gonna fly

This response on the 'linux-crypto' list seems to agree: https://marc.info/?l=linux-crypto-vger&m=153310819905231

Re: WireGuard is submitted for Linux kernel inclusion

#38

Post by bjoli »

mick87 wrote: post #5
dtx1 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you only use it to connect remotely into your home network or are there VPN Services for wireguard available?

I use the mullvad VPN service for wireguard. They currently have 44 wireguard servers active around the world.

I second this. I remember reading an interview with one of the mullvad staff saying "y dream openVPN config would be [insert more or less verbatim the wireguard spec], but due to the nature of openVPN that either won't happen or will take a long time". They were quick at adopting wireguard :)

They are very knowledgeable and spend a lot of effort in securing their VPN. I contacted them about what I thought was a bug, and got a very thorough answer about why mullvad behaved like that, what kind of threat it mitigated, and how I got the behaviour I wanted together with things I could do to keep safe (which was to update the kernel). Within 6 hours.

I am a very happy customer.

Post reply on HN