[flagged]
GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
71–80 of 142 posts
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
It became less of a choice for many after they sadly had to disable port forwarding.
Yeah, their reasoning is solid (easy to abuse) but it is still a very useful feature. AFAIK, at the moment your choices are AirVPN and ProtonVPN. AirVPN has static port forwarding and Proton has UPNP port forwarding.
Currently using airVPN, but ye gods, their eddie client is atrocious on linux. I wind up using wg / nmcli, but then have to block traffic going outside of the vpn with iptable rules because it leaks for some reason.
I miss mullvad dearly, and I might try proton after my 3y sub is up.
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#73[flagged]
They didn't. They forked an old unmaintained thing already written in rust to add new features...
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#74Nice, I love WireGuard. I ended up building WrapGuard [1] to run applications without root access to the host and choose Go to write it in. I don't really know Rust, but does it make more sense for firmware/networking type software? Is there even a difference? 1. https://github.com/puzed/wrapguard
One usecase I've always wanted is being able to combine multiple tunnels into one shared connection, for instance airVPN allows 5 simultaneous users per sub, it would be awesome if I could run 5x connections and combine their traffic, but I dunno how I would do this with wg / nmcli
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#75[flagged]
They didn't. They forked an old unmaintained thing already written in rust to add new features...
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#76Nice, I love WireGuard. I ended up building WrapGuard [1] to run applications without root access to the host and choose Go to write it in. I don't really know Rust, but does it make more sense for firmware/networking type software? Is there even a difference? 1. https://github.com/puzed/wrapguard
> firmware
Yes, lots of firmware runs on hardware where a GC doesn't make sense. Because of limited memory and performance constraints. Sometimes having predictable timings (i.e. not a GC with pauses) is nice. I believe compiler and library support is also just better for many embedded platforms in rust.
> networking type software
Rust is a much more aggressively optimizing compiler, and thus will typically be faster, in the places where that matters. GC pauses might also be a point against golang in some places here. Rust's idioms provide slightly less opportunity for bugs in places where reliability matters (e.g. having a type system that requires you check for errors instead of just patterns that encourage it).
So there's a difference, but generally go is a good enough language for networking software and it would be rare that I wouldn't suggest that "use what you know" is more important than the differences between the languages for non-firmware network software.
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#77Nice, I love WireGuard. I ended up building WrapGuard [1] to run applications without root access to the host and choose Go to write it in. I don't really know Rust, but does it make more sense for firmware/networking type software? Is there even a difference? 1. https://github.com/puzed/wrapguard
One usecase I've always wanted is being able to combine multiple tunnels into one shared connection, for instance airVPN allows 5 simultaneous users per sub, it would be awesome if I could run 5x connections and combine their traffic, but I dunno how I would do this with wg / nmcli
VPNs are level 3 while interface bonding is level 2. You’d have to create a vxlan over wireguard. It sounds like a nightmare but it would be interesting to implement.
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#78I would love to see more root cause analysis data on the crashes they were seeing with wireguard-go. I wonder if it was bugs in the library itself, or the FFI.
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#79I definitely noticed the performance boost on my Pixel 8, for some reason it seems to really not like wireguard-go, it struggled to pull even 100mbps, maybe something unoptimized on Google's custom hardware. With the new GotaTun version I can pull 500mbps+, though unfortunately it also seems to have introduced a bug that randomly prevents the phone from entering a deep sleep state, so occasionally my battery will ran…
MTU strikes again. 1320.
Why 1320 and not larger?
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#80[flagged]