netdev - 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <5776827F.8010306@nod.at>
Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 16:47:27 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
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

Jason,

Am 01.07.2016 um 16:25 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Richard Weinberger
> <richard.weinberger@...il.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> No, this isn't the case. Each net device has multiple peers. Check out
> the example config on the website, pasted here for convenience:
> 
>> [Interface]
>> PrivateKey = yAnz5TF+lXXJte14tji3zlMNq+hd2rYUIgJBgB3fBmk=
>> ListenPort = 41414
>>
>> [Peer]
>> PublicKey = xTIBA5rboUvnH4htodjb6e697QjLERt1NAB4mZqp8Dg=
>> AllowedIPs = 10.192.122.3/32, 10.192.124.1/24
>>
>> [Peer]
>> PublicKey = TrMvSoP4jYQlY6RIzBgbssQqY3vxI2Pi+y71lOWWXX0=
>> AllowedIPs = 10.192.122.4/32, 192.168.0.0/16
>>
>> [Peer]
>> PublicKey = gN65BkIKy1eCE9pP1wdc8ROUtkHLF2PfAqYdyYBz6EA=
>> AllowedIPs = 10.10.10.230/32
> 
> If that file is example.conf, you could set up a single device like this:
> 
> $ ip link add dev wg0 type wireguard
> $ wg setconf wg0 example.conf
> 
> That single netdev is now configured to communicate with several peers.
> 
> I hope this clarifies things. Let me know if you have further questions.

Yes. Makes sense. :-)

Thanks,
//richard