Multicast over a wireguard link?

Jason A. Donenfeld Jason at
Tue Dec 20 19:43:15 CET 2016

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke at> wrote:
> Right, but that means that even if multicast is added, a routing
> protocol won't be terribly useful, since it can't tell wireguard which
> subnets lives behind which peers. What I would need is to be able to
> assign /32s (or IPv6 lladdrs) to the interface for each peer, and have
> the kernel routing table determine which subnets should go to each of
> those. My hope was that wireguard could then figure out where to send
> the packet from the /32s (which would be in the wireguard config,
> presumably).

Ahh, I see. In this case, the routing protocol needs to update
WireGuard, not the kernel's routing table. This forces you to
re-envision your routing protocol in terms of "which public key should
get which routes?" which strikes me as an authenticity improvement.

More information about the WireGuard mailing list