* Re: Channel/Tunnel bonding with wireguard
@ 2018-11-06 8:42 GMX John Thomson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: GMX John Thomson @ 2018-11-06 8:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wireguard
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Channel/Tunnel bonding with wireguard
@ 2018-11-06 20:51 Saeid Akbari
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Saeid Akbari @ 2018-11-06 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GMX John Thomson; +Cc: wireguard
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Channel/Tunnel bonding with wireguard
@ 2018-01-22 21:03 Saeid Akbari
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Saeid Akbari @ 2018-01-22 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wireguard
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,
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-11-06 20:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-11-06 8:42 Channel/Tunnel bonding with wireguard GMX John Thomson
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-11-06 20:51 Saeid Akbari
2018-01-22 21:03 Saeid Akbari
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).