21–30 of 293 posts
I’ve been nothing but happy with WireGuard. Connecting from my iPhone to my home and it works great, it’s fast and reliable. I’m never waiting to connect. Switching between WiFi, mobile, and sleeping go unnoticed.
Your home has publicly accessible^1 IP address Or you are using a third party-controlled server with direct internet access to make home IP accessible 1. No ISP firewall blocking unsolicited incoming traffic Do you configure WG to use persistent keepalives
So,curious here: I'v been reading about how the focus these days is to move networking code to userspace because you can squeeze out more PPS performance,does the fact that WC makes use of kernel code heavily give it a performance disadvantage?
I’ve been nothing but happy with WireGuard. Connecting from my iPhone to my home and it works great, it’s fast and reliable. I’m never waiting to connect. Switching between WiFi, mobile, and sleeping go unnoticed.
Your home has publicly accessible^1 IP address Or you are using a third party-controlled server with direct internet access to make home IP accessible 1. No ISP firewall blocking unsolicited incoming traffic Do you configure WG to use persistent keepalives
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your home has publicly accessible^1 IP address Or you are using a third party-controlled server with direct internet access to make home IP accessible 1. No ISP firewall blocking unsolicited incoming traffic Do you configure WG to use persistent keepalives
I have a public IP.
Can you tell us anything about how you obtained one
1. No ISP firewall blocking unsolicited incoming traffic
So,curious here: I'v been reading about how the focus these days is to move networking code to userspace because you can squeeze out more PPS performance,does the fact that WC makes use of kernel code heavily give it a performance disadvantage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a public IP.
A previous thread about WG had some discussion about obtaining a publicly reachable^1 IP address. No doubt many readers are interested Can you tell us anything about how you obtained one 1. No ISP firewall blocking unsolicited incoming traffic
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So like IPSec? e: I mean that doesn’t suck
A major difference, besides WireGuard's simplicity, is that IPSec is a layer 4 protocol (ESP packets instead of TCP/UDP packets) whereas WireGuard is a layer 5 protocol (runs over UDP), so switches don't choke on it, and so a WireGuard peer doesn't need a public-routable IP address, but can be behind NAT.
Regardless of the layer, in a few words WireGuard is a simple encrypted tunnel over UDP. Since it’s UDP - there’s no guarantee all packets will be delivered, BUT - what WireGuard places emphasis on is all packets delivered from the WireGuard interface will be authenticated and encrypted. Similarity if packets are received from a particular peer, replies to that IP address will be guaranteed to go to that same peer.
The best feature of all imho is OpenSSH inspired authentication - makes configuring server/peers really straightforward.
References [1] https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf