Overlapping AllowedIPs Configuration

Ivan Labáth labawi-wg at matrix-dream.net
Fri Jun 7 10:05:07 CEST 2019

On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 12:09:45PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Paul Zillmann <paul at zil.li> writes:
> > The problem is that the allowed-ips configuration has multiple purposes: 
> > routing table and firewall/packet filter. This introduces these 
> > problems. It would be helpfull to get a compile flag or something else 
> > to make this behavior optional.
> That is probably not going to happen; the crypto-routing is quite
> integral to Wireguard, and is an important security feature.

Disabling source filtering entirely is a bad idea, but permitting
non-routed (duplicate) inputs would be a useful feature for key-rotation,
failover and building resilient and/or exotic routing networks
without adding yet another layer of tunneling headers.

For example by separating parameters as:
AllowedIPs: A, B, C
RouteIPs: A, C
or set both:
IPs: A, C

As per the original question, I do find it strange, that a transient
modification of a peer can remove routes from another peer. Also
discarding routes in general, even more so when done silently.


More information about the WireGuard mailing list