Re: Should I expect faster recovery after one side goes down

[Baptiste Jonglez <baptiste@bitsofnetworks.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1323 bytes --]

Hi,

On 28-11-17, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 00:44:13 -0600,
>  Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> wrote:
> >
> >I think the correct fix is to know if I reboot the router for testing
> >something, I need to also restart wireguard to make sure it is sending
> >data to the expected port. This isn't going to be an issue in normal
> >operation.

It sounds like one of these situations where persistent keepalives would
be useful, doesn't it?

This way the laptop would create a new binding in your firewall.

> I found a way to make it work more automatically. The reason the port was
> getting reassigned was because the original connection packet was being
> tracked and was conflicting with the source nat mapping even though in
> reallity the connection was the same. By putting in CT --notrack rules I was
> able to block that traking and without the conflict the port doesn't get
> remapped. I don't need tracking or the original connection for my firewall
> rules so this should be OK. On testing it seems to work as expected. Now
> when I reboot my router, my laptop reconnects and the wireguard tunnel works
> without having to restart it.
> _______________________________________________
> WireGuard mailing list
> WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]