Channel/Tunnel bonding with wireguard

Channel/Tunnel bonding with wireguard

[Saeid Akbari]

Hi folks,

I have been thinking about utilizing WireGuard on my VPS to act as a central 
hub for combining my multiple slower connections and having a faster one. I 
had a possible way of doing it in my mind, and finally today I did a little bit 
of googling found this article (also learned the real name for the technique: 
bonding):

http://vrayo.com/how-to-set-up-a-bonding-vpn-connection-in-linux/

Since this approach uses a user-space daemon to relay around data, it would 
incur some performance penalties compared to a kernel-mode driver like WG. So 
it's probably not a good idea to use it on top of WG.

The pure WG scheme I have in my mind goes something like this:
- having a single swg0 interface on VPS.
- having multiple interfaces on the client (cwg0, cwg1, ...), each configured 
with a single peer, that is the VPS swg0 interface.
- some iptables + ip rules fu to split and re-join the stream of IP packets.

For the third part, I can think of statistic netfilter match for splitting the 
packets. But there are other things around which I don't know much about; like 
the qdiscs... so I'm not confident if I'm headed in the right direction...

Is this a good idea? What do you suggest? Is there any better way to do it?

Thanks in Advance

Saeid,

WireGuard porting to kernel 3.4

[JuniorJPDJ]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 205 bytes --]

Hi,

Would it be hard to port WG to 3.4 kernel?
Was there huge changes in networking or other used in WG stuff between 
3.4 and 3.10?

It is very popular on a bit older android phones.

Thanks,
JuniorJPDJ

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 523 bytes --]

Re: Channel/Tunnel bonding with wireguard

[Saeid Akbari]

Hey John,

Unfortunately no, I don't quite remember it, but each attempt failed somehow. 
At first, I tried with a single swg0 interface on the server, which had two 
peers with different ip addresses (cwg0 and cwg1 on the client machine). Used 
qdiscs to split packets between the cwg0 & cwg1, but I couldn't manage to 
combine them on the server-side.
Then went on with two swg0 and swg1 interfaces, each with a peer corresponding 
to client cwg0 and cwg1, and bonded the two with a bridge on the server. 
Again, because of different IPs, it really didn't make sense to the kernel to 
see them as one, and I couldn't make it so. Eventually, I ran out of ideas and 
gave up.

However, the VTrunkD really seemed promising. (it implements the bonding in 
user-space, meaning it can actually work, and is more *smart* than a simple 
qdisc, and takes into account the underlying connections' properties). But I 
simply gave up on the whole idea, mainly because there was no longer a need 
for such a thing, plus I didn't have the time to investigate it. You should 
look into it though :)

Regards,
Saeid


_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

Re: Channel/Tunnel bonding with wireguard

[GMX John Thomson]

Hi Saeid,

Did you manage to get any further with this idea, cause I was planning on doing something similar

Thanks,
John
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard