Maximum number of interfaces + Debug
Will van Gulik
mailing-porcus at porcus.ch
Wed Jan 11 22:49:26 CET 2017
> On 11 Jan 2017, at 10:58, Baptiste Jonglez <baptiste at bitsofnetworks.org> wrote:
> Hi Will,
> There have been backwards-incompatible changes recently: can you make sure
> that you use the exact same wireguard version on all peers?
I was using the same version (Debian package 0.0.20161230-1 from Unstable). However my bug occured between the package version and the compiled version from 0.0.20170105 . So I'll retry with both same kernel modules. Because at least for that try, I have a mismatch. But for my previous experiments all the version were the same.
Additional question, is it better to use one interface with a big subnet and multiple remote peers or an interface by peer with a /30 or a /31 ?
>> Any clue, ideas, else ?
>>> On 03 Jan 2017, at 09:52, Will van Gulik <mailing-porcus at porcus.ch> wrote:
>>> I'm trying to use multiple wireguard tunnel in one VM at the same time, but it seems that only the first two I configured are working. I'm currently trying with 5 interfaces, I see the incoming packet in tcpdump but no reaction of the destination host with all the wg interfaces.
>>> I'm not sure there is a limitation on that, I could totally have missed that. Should I use 1 interface with multiple peers rather than multiple interface ?
>>> I'm testing that on a Debian with 4.8.7-1, running on a KVM host.
>>> Any insight ?
>>> Kind regards,
>>> WireGuard mailing list
>>> WireGuard at lists.zx2c4.com
>> WireGuard mailing list
>> WireGuard at lists.zx2c4.com <mailto:WireGuard at lists.zx2c4.com>
>> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard <https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WireGuard