RFC: wg syncpeers wg0 wireguard.conf
marc.fawzi at gmail.com
Wed Jun 12 02:25:54 CEST 2019
I'm very much in favour of this (updating `setconf` to use this new
syncronisation approach), if anything it feels more logical and is how I
initially (wrongly) assumed `setconf` behaved when starting out with
WireGuard a while back.
+1 ... it's better to keep the same command if its definition can be
expanded (fewer things to remember and less mental clutter)
p.s. does this overlap with similar planned in wg-dynamic?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:23 PM Steven Honson <steven at honson.id.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, at 3:56 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > The other thing I was wondering is: aside from performance and races
> > as described above, why not just make this the functionality of
> > `setconf`? Then there's be no need to introduce a new subcommand. In
> > otherwords, the idea would be to make `setconf` not destroy existing
> > peers if we're going to be re-adding them again.
> I'm very much in favour of this (updating `setconf` to use this new
> syncronisation approach), if anything it feels more logical and is how I
> initially (wrongly) assumed `setconf` behaved when starting out with
> WireGuard a while back.
> WireGuard mailing list
> WireGuard at lists.zx2c4.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WireGuard