From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: luci@createc.ro Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 1c0adb7c for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:05:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.intelterm.ro (mail.crimel.ro [109.166.220.71]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 05f6a0e6 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:05:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.123.118] (unknown [188.24.31.89]) by mail.intelterm.ro (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3ECE212DE9D for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:12:02 +0200 (EET) Subject: Re: Babel over wireguard To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com References: <87a7yw0zmp.fsf@toke.dk> From: Lucian Cristian Message-ID: <4d49b9c9-4264-61cd-72d5-333800a94c91@createc.ro> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:12:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E31636EF887C7318FD5410BB" List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------E31636EF887C7318FD5410BB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 06.12.2017 15:22, Ryan Whelan wrote: > If you're gauging interest, I would be very interested in using > unicast atop Wireguard for routing selection > > Thank you for the explanation; very helpful. > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > > Ryan Whelan > writes: > > > Are there any routing protocol implementations that do not depend on > > multicast? > > We are in the process of standardising Babel, and one of the things we > are adding is the ability to run entirely over unicast. So in the > future, Babel will be able to do this (and integration with > Wireguard is > one of the things I want to achieve with this). But for now, no > implementation exists. > > Other than that, maybe BGP? But you'd still need integration with > Wireguard if you don't want to just set AllowedIPs to ::/0 > > > In my setup, 2 hosts will be able to route to one another over 2 > > different wg interfaces and I just need something to select > whichever > > interface has the least latency. Anything like that exist? :D > > You can do this with point-to-point wireguard links. I.e., as long as > the wireguard link only has two peers, you can set AllowedIPs to > 0.0.0.0/0 , ::/0 on both sides, assign manual > link-local addresses > (anything in fe80::/64 will work, so you could just assign > fe80::1/64 to > one side and fe80::2/64 to the other side; they don't need to be > globally unique either). Then you can run babeld on top, which will > instruct the kernel to send appropriate packets to the wireguard > interface, and wireguard will forward it to the other side. > > It's not currently possible to run a routing daemon on a multi-peer > wireguard interface. The routing daemon would need to reconfigure > wireguard in the kernel when it adds routes. I am planning to add this > to Bird at some point, but have not gotten around to it yet... > > -Toke > > > > > _______________________________________________ > WireGuard mailing list > WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com > https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard I'm usig frr routing with eigrp over wg EIGRP: eigrpd 3.1-dev starting: vty@2613 EIGRP: interface 192.168.123.1 [10] join EIGRP Multicast group. EIGRP: interface 172.16.223.2 [15] join EIGRP Multicast group. EIGRP: Neighbor 172.16.223.1 (wg0) is pending: new adjacency EIGRP: Neighbor(172.16.223.1) adjacency became full but it can be used as unicast specifing the neighbor, but with no interface for the moment, is under development Regards --------------E31636EF887C7318FD5410BB Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 06.12.2017 15:22, Ryan Whelan wrote:
If you're gauging interest, I would be very interested in using unicast atop Wireguard for routing selection

Thank you for the explanation; very helpful.  


On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
Ryan Whelan <rcwhelan@gmail.com> writes:

> Are there any routing protocol implementations that do not depend on
> multicast?

We are in the process of standardising Babel, and one of the things we
are adding is the ability to run entirely over unicast. So in the
future, Babel will be able to do this (and integration with Wireguard is
one of the things I want to achieve with this). But for now, no
implementation exists.

Other than that, maybe BGP? But you'd still need integration with
Wireguard if you don't want to just set AllowedIPs to ::/0

> In my setup, 2 hosts will be able to route to one another over 2
> different wg interfaces and I just need something to select whichever
> interface has the least latency. Anything like that exist? :D

You can do this with point-to-point wireguard links. I.e., as long as
the wireguard link only has two peers, you can set AllowedIPs to
0.0.0.0/0, ::/0 on both sides, assign manual link-local addresses
(anything in fe80::/64 will work, so you could just assign fe80::1/64 to
one side and fe80::2/64 to the other side; they don't need to be
globally unique either). Then you can run babeld on top, which will
instruct the kernel to send appropriate packets to the wireguard
interface, and wireguard will forward it to the other side.

It's not currently possible to run a routing daemon on a multi-peer
wireguard interface. The routing daemon would need to reconfigure
wireguard in the kernel when it adds routes. I am planning to add this
to Bird at some point, but have not gotten around to it yet...

-Toke



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

I'm usig frr routing with eigrp over wg

EIGRP: eigrpd 3.1-dev starting: vty@2613
EIGRP: interface 192.168.123.1 [10] join EIGRP Multicast group.
EIGRP: interface 172.16.223.2 [15] join EIGRP Multicast group.
EIGRP: Neighbor 172.16.223.1 (wg0) is pending: new adjacency
EIGRP: Neighbor(172.16.223.1) adjacency became full

but it can be used as unicast specifing the neighbor, but with no interface for the moment, is under development

Regards


--------------E31636EF887C7318FD5410BB--