From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752585AbcGALne (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 07:43:34 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f46.google.com ([209.85.218.46]:34945 "EHLO mail-oi0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751994AbcGALnc (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 07:43:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Richard Weinberger Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 13:42:58 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] WireGuard: next generation secure network tunnel To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Cc: David Miller , Netdev , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > WireGuard acts as a virtual interface, doing layer 3 IP tunneling, > addable with "ip link add dev wg0 type wireguard". You can set the > interface's local IP and routes using the usual ip-address and So every logical tunnel will allocate a new net device? Doesn't this scale badly? I have ipsec alike setups with many, many road warriors in mind. -- Thanks, //richard