DHT suggestion (was: Both peers behind NAT?)
Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics
ml at bartschnet.de
Tue Dec 18 01:14:32 CET 2018
I suggest to extend the roaming messages after the following scheme:
<public key>:<64-bit linux timestamp>:<128-bit current IPv4|IPv6 address>:<16-bit current UDP port>:<signature>
When peerA gets a new address or port it sends a roaming message to directly connected peers B, C, D
which store the roaming packet of peerA in their DHT table. When peerE which is connected to peerB and peerC wants to contact peerA
it sends a query to the other peers (B, C). If they can't reply with a current roaming package, they forward the query to peerD.
PeerE receives roaming packages for peerA from other peers, validates the signature and uses the IP address and UDP port
of the most current received roaming message to contact peerA.
This way users/admins/operators only need to know the public key of peering partners and do not have to know IP addresses or UDP ports
or fiddle around with annoying DynDNS configurations or DynDNS-services.
Am 29.11.18 um 09:00 schrieb Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics:
> I'm new to the list, so a "Hello" to all! :-)
> Are there any plans to implement a DHT-based solution for IP-address/port provisioning like https://github.com/manuels/wireguard-p2p?
> In case of static IP-addresses configuration is also simplified as you don't have to fiddle around with IP-addresses.
> If peers announce their subnets via DHT, it would allow to set up overlay networks easily.
> WireGuard mailing list
> WireGuard at lists.zx2c4.com
More information about the WireGuard