From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: logcabin@fastmail.net Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 2b538110 for ; Tue, 8 May 2018 16:21:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id adce7a36 for ; Tue, 8 May 2018 16:21:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC5022733 for ; Tue, 8 May 2018 12:23:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1525796621.839781.1365024480.36F36E48@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: logcabin@fastmail.net To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 12:23:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4f1f154f85bb01204c883e37e41eba86@rcrdbrt.com> Subject: Re: WG interface to ipv4 References: <4f1f154f85bb01204c883e37e41eba86@rcrdbrt.com> List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, May 8, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Riccardo Berto wrote: > > > I don't really get why the iface bindings should be accomplished at the > WireGuard level. If I get it correctly, it won't be safer than it > already is. > WireGuard just has to provide a secure and standard network interface. > There are other full-featured, clogged VPNs out there that can even make > you the coffee, I'd like WireGuard to stand out and stick to the > original "UNIX tools philosophy": do one thing and do it well. > Agree completely. I'd be happy to see WG remain as a fast, simple packet-encryption-transmission engine. _______________________________________________ > WireGuard mailing list > WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com > https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard