Alternative to UDP
steve at erayd.net
Mon Feb 19 23:15:52 CET 2018
This feels like a bad idea to me - switching to a dedicated protocol would
remove a small amount of overhead, but comes with a lot of downsides, which
in my opinion outweighs the minor benefit of removing some of the overhead.
I have a strong preference for the continued use of UDP, because a large
amount of consumer networking gear can't handle destination NAT for
anything that isn't UDP or TCP. And even wth gear that can, using a
separate IP protocol would limit clients relying on destination NAT to one
client machine per public IP.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, 09:20 Eric Dillmann, <lists at jave.fr> wrote:
> Today i discovered that OVH is limiting UDP rate to 6Mbit/s, i did a test
> by encapsulating wireguard in an ip/ip tunnel
> and got 90Mbit/S.
> Is there a way to make wireguard evolve to use it's own protocol number.
> That would prevent the overhead of wireguard over ipip/gre/vxlan ...
> WireGuard mailing list
> WireGuard at lists.zx2c4.com
Erayd LTD *·* Consultant
*Phone: +64 4 974-4229 **·** Mob: +64 27 565-3237*
*PO Box 10019 The Terrace, Wellington 6143, NZ*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WireGuard