linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] WireGuard: next generation secure network tunnel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAFLxGvzk5NywJou_g9_z6JQUrvcTNsAUPXt4R6AdS9nmRqYwcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 13:42:58 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To:	"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] WireGuard: next generation secure network tunnel

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> WireGuard acts as a virtual interface, doing layer 3 IP tunneling,
> addable with "ip link add dev wg0 type wireguard". You can set the
> interface's local IP and routes using the usual ip-address and

So every logical tunnel will allocate a new net device?
Doesn't this scale badly? I have ipsec alike setups
with many, many road warriors in mind.

-- 
Thanks,
//richard