* Maximum number of interfaces ? @ 2017-01-03 8:52 Will van Gulik 2017-01-05 22:49 ` Maximum number of interfaces + Debug Will van Gulik 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Will van Gulik @ 2017-01-03 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: wireguard Hi, I'm trying to use multiple wireguard tunnel in one VM at the same time, = but it seems that only the first two I configured are working. I'm = currently trying with 5 interfaces, I see the incoming packet in tcpdump = but no reaction of the destination host with all the wg interfaces. I'm not sure there is a limitation on that, I could totally have missed = that. Should I use 1 interface with multiple peers rather than multiple = interface ? I'm testing that on a Debian with 4.8.7-1, running on a KVM host. Any insight ? Kind regards, Will= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum number of interfaces + Debug 2017-01-03 8:52 Maximum number of interfaces ? Will van Gulik @ 2017-01-05 22:49 ` Will van Gulik 2017-01-11 9:58 ` Baptiste Jonglez 2017-01-11 23:59 ` Jason A. Donenfeld 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Will van Gulik @ 2017-01-05 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: wireguard Hi Everyone, I went a bit further and did compile the module with debug rather than = using the repo's version, and I get a : wireguard: Invalid packet from xxxx:yyy in my dmesg. I would have hoped to get something more clear, but would a = module version mismatch be an issue or does this mostly looks like a key = issue ? I would be strange because I reissued them several times. Any clue, ideas, else ? Cheers, Will > On 03 Jan 2017, at 09:52, Will van Gulik <mailing-porcus@porcus.ch> = wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I'm trying to use multiple wireguard tunnel in one VM at the same = time, but it seems that only the first two I configured are working. I'm = currently trying with 5 interfaces, I see the incoming packet in tcpdump = but no reaction of the destination host with all the wg interfaces. >=20 > I'm not sure there is a limitation on that, I could totally have = missed that. Should I use 1 interface with multiple peers rather than = multiple interface ? >=20 > I'm testing that on a Debian with 4.8.7-1, running on a KVM host. >=20 > Any insight ? >=20 > Kind regards, >=20 > Will > _______________________________________________ > WireGuard mailing list > WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com > https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum number of interfaces + Debug 2017-01-05 22:49 ` Maximum number of interfaces + Debug Will van Gulik @ 2017-01-11 9:58 ` Baptiste Jonglez 2017-01-11 21:49 ` Will van Gulik 2017-01-11 23:59 ` Jason A. Donenfeld 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Baptiste Jonglez @ 2017-01-11 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will van Gulik; +Cc: wireguard [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1696 bytes --] Hi Will, On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:49:03PM +0100, Will van Gulik wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I went a bit further and did compile the module with debug rather than using the repo's version, and I get a : > wireguard: Invalid packet from xxxx:yyy > in my dmesg. I would have hoped to get something more clear, but would a module version mismatch be an issue or does this mostly looks like a key issue ? I would be strange because I reissued them several times. There have been backwards-incompatible changes recently: can you make sure that you use the exact same wireguard version on all peers? > Any clue, ideas, else ? > > Cheers, > > Will > > > On 03 Jan 2017, at 09:52, Will van Gulik <mailing-porcus@porcus.ch> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm trying to use multiple wireguard tunnel in one VM at the same time, but it seems that only the first two I configured are working. I'm currently trying with 5 interfaces, I see the incoming packet in tcpdump but no reaction of the destination host with all the wg interfaces. > > > > I'm not sure there is a limitation on that, I could totally have missed that. Should I use 1 interface with multiple peers rather than multiple interface ? > > > > I'm testing that on a Debian with 4.8.7-1, running on a KVM host. > > > > Any insight ? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Will > > _______________________________________________ > > WireGuard mailing list > > WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com > > https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard > > _______________________________________________ > 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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum number of interfaces + Debug 2017-01-11 9:58 ` Baptiste Jonglez @ 2017-01-11 21:49 ` Will van Gulik 2017-01-11 23:57 ` Baptiste Jonglez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Will van Gulik @ 2017-01-11 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: wireguard [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1958 bytes --] Hi Baptiste, > On 11 Jan 2017, at 10:58, Baptiste Jonglez <baptiste@bitsofnetworks.org> wrote: > > Hi Will, > > > There have been backwards-incompatible changes recently: can you make sure > that you use the exact same wireguard version on all peers? I was using the same version (Debian package 0.0.20161230-1 from Unstable). However my bug occured between the package version and the compiled version from 0.0.20170105 . So I'll retry with both same kernel modules. Because at least for that try, I have a mismatch. But for my previous experiments all the version were the same. Additional question, is it better to use one interface with a big subnet and multiple remote peers or an interface by peer with a /30 or a /31 ? Cheers, Will > >> Any clue, ideas, else ? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Will >> >>> On 03 Jan 2017, at 09:52, Will van Gulik <mailing-porcus@porcus.ch> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm trying to use multiple wireguard tunnel in one VM at the same time, but it seems that only the first two I configured are working. I'm currently trying with 5 interfaces, I see the incoming packet in tcpdump but no reaction of the destination host with all the wg interfaces. >>> >>> I'm not sure there is a limitation on that, I could totally have missed that. Should I use 1 interface with multiple peers rather than multiple interface ? >>> >>> I'm testing that on a Debian with 4.8.7-1, running on a KVM host. >>> >>> Any insight ? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Will >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WireGuard mailing list >>> WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com >>> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WireGuard mailing list >> WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com <mailto:WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com> >> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard <https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard> [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6061 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum number of interfaces + Debug 2017-01-11 21:49 ` Will van Gulik @ 2017-01-11 23:57 ` Baptiste Jonglez 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Baptiste Jonglez @ 2017-01-11 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will van Gulik; +Cc: wireguard [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2373 bytes --] On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:49:26PM +0100, Will van Gulik wrote: > Hi Baptiste, > > > On 11 Jan 2017, at 10:58, Baptiste Jonglez <baptiste@bitsofnetworks.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Will, > > > > > > There have been backwards-incompatible changes recently: can you make sure > > that you use the exact same wireguard version on all peers? > > I was using the same version (Debian package 0.0.20161230-1 from > Unstable). However my bug occured between the package version and the > compiled version from 0.0.20170105 . So I'll retry with both same kernel > modules. Because at least for that try, I have a mismatch. But for my > previous experiments all the version were the same. Ok then, I don't know what the issue might be. > Additional question, is it better to use one interface with a big subnet > and multiple remote peers or an interface by peer with a /30 or a /31 ? It depends on your use-case. As far as I remember, you were using OSPF on top of Wireguard, weren't you? In that case, you are forced to use one interface per peer (with AllowedIPs = ::/0 on each interface). Baptiste > >> Any clue, ideas, else ? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Will > >> > >>> On 03 Jan 2017, at 09:52, Will van Gulik <mailing-porcus@porcus.ch> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I'm trying to use multiple wireguard tunnel in one VM at the same time, but it seems that only the first two I configured are working. I'm currently trying with 5 interfaces, I see the incoming packet in tcpdump but no reaction of the destination host with all the wg interfaces. > >>> > >>> I'm not sure there is a limitation on that, I could totally have missed that. Should I use 1 interface with multiple peers rather than multiple interface ? > >>> > >>> I'm testing that on a Debian with 4.8.7-1, running on a KVM host. > >>> > >>> Any insight ? > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> Will > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> WireGuard mailing list > >>> WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com > >>> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> WireGuard mailing list > >> WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com <mailto:WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com> > >> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard <https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard> [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum number of interfaces + Debug 2017-01-05 22:49 ` Maximum number of interfaces + Debug Will van Gulik 2017-01-11 9:58 ` Baptiste Jonglez @ 2017-01-11 23:59 ` Jason A. Donenfeld 2017-01-12 8:11 ` Will van Gulik 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Jason A. Donenfeld @ 2017-01-11 23:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will van Gulik; +Cc: WireGuard mailing list Send pcaps! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum number of interfaces + Debug 2017-01-11 23:59 ` Jason A. Donenfeld @ 2017-01-12 8:11 ` Will van Gulik 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Will van Gulik @ 2017-01-12 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jason A. Donenfeld; +Cc: WireGuard mailing list I'll do my tests again with kernel modules and will do pcaps too ;) Thanks ! > On 12 Jan 2017, at 00:59, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote: > > Send pcaps! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-01-12 8:02 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-01-03 8:52 Maximum number of interfaces ? Will van Gulik 2017-01-05 22:49 ` Maximum number of interfaces + Debug Will van Gulik 2017-01-11 9:58 ` Baptiste Jonglez 2017-01-11 21:49 ` Will van Gulik 2017-01-11 23:57 ` Baptiste Jonglez 2017-01-11 23:59 ` Jason A. Donenfeld 2017-01-12 8:11 ` Will van Gulik
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.