From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuxmealux@protonmail.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id e84e1f04 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:04:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail4.protonmail.ch (mail4.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 3b15105a for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:04:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 11:14:52 -0400 To: Matthias Urlichs From: Gianluca Gabrielli Subject: Re: TCP Wireguard with socat Message-ID: <6UEIqzXriyGvMmVuBKcld9Fp5XzM-oCiMdJtB514oZVXhuFiCQqQtcOkFmqWUkkpz4WHhr9_9q7M9BRpDwdTET41cDJCypfU7vv7jxpJfyk=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <88b9e6e0-1f38-1a20-3fac-372e96f847a3@urlichs.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com" Reply-To: Gianluca Gabrielli List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Yes, I can confirm now. Wireguard + ssf[1] (UDP forwarding) works very well= . I will proceed doing some benchmark to understand how much this solution is= downgrading performance.=20 [1] https://github.com/securesocketfunneling/ssf=20 Cheers, Gianluca