From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: organization of wireguard linux kernel repos moving forward
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 17:01:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87blshij2y.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9oUfp_1udMFNMpeXPeoa7aacdNp9Q31eKvoTBpu+G5rpQ@mail.gmail.com>
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 1:43 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
>>
>> "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> writes:
>>
>> > 2) wireguard-tools.git will have the userspace utilities and scripts,
>> > such as wg(8) and wg-quick(8), and be easily packageable by distros.
>> > This repo won't be live until we get a bit closer to the 5.6 release,
>> > but when it is live, it will live at:
>> > https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-tools/ [currently 404s]
>> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/zx2c4/wireguard-tools.git/
>> > [currently 404s]
>>
>> Any plans for integrating this further with iproute2? One could imagine
>> either teaching 'ip' about the wireguard-specific config (keys etc), or
>> even just moving the 'wg' binary wholesale into iproute2?
>
> I'd definitely be interested in this. Back in 2015, that was the plan.
> Then it took a long time to get to where we are now, and since then
> wg(8) has really evolved into its own useful thing. The easiest thing
> would be to move wg(8) wholesale into iproute2 like you suggested;
> that'd allow people to continue using their infrastructure and whatnot
> they've used for a long time now. A more nuanced approach would be
> coming up with a _parallel_ iproute2 tool with mostly the same syntax
> as wg(8) but as a subcommand of ip(8). Originally the latter appealed
> to me, but at this point maybe the former is better after all. I
> suppose something to consider is that wg(8) is actually a
> cross-platform tool now, with a unified syntax across a whole bunch of
> operating systems.
Hmm, I don't really have any opinion about which approach makes the most
sense; I'm primarily concerned with getting the support into iproute2 so
that it is possible to set up and configure a wireguard tunnel "out of
the box". Both approaches would achieve that, I think...
> But it's also just boring C.
Well, we could always rewrite it in Rust or something? ;)
-Toke
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-09 16:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-09 11:56 organization of wireguard linux kernel repos moving forward Jason A. Donenfeld
2019-12-09 12:43 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-12-09 12:49 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2019-12-09 16:01 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2019-12-09 16:18 ` David Ahern
2019-12-09 16:36 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-12-26 17:45 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87blshij2y.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@toke.dk \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).