From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: organization of wireguard linux kernel repos moving forward
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 17:36:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <875zipihhk.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8a5bdf0f-c7f8-4667-ecba-ecb671bea2e5@gmail.com>
David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> writes:
> On 12/9/19 5:49 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> I'd definitely be interested in this. Back in 2015, that was the plan.
>> Then it took a long time to get to where we are now, and since then
>> wg(8) has really evolved into its own useful thing. The easiest thing
>> would be to move wg(8) wholesale into iproute2 like you suggested;
>> that'd allow people to continue using their infrastructure and whatnot
>> they've used for a long time now. A more nuanced approach would be
>> coming up with a _parallel_ iproute2 tool with mostly the same syntax
>> as wg(8) but as a subcommand of ip(8). Originally the latter appealed
>> to me, but at this point maybe the former is better after all. I
>> suppose something to consider is that wg(8) is actually a
>> cross-platform tool now, with a unified syntax across a whole bunch of
>> operating systems. But it's also just boring C.
>
> If wg is to move into iproute2, it needs to align with the other
> commands and leverage the generic facilities where possible. ie., any
> functionality that overlaps with existing iproute2 code to be converted
> to use iproute2 code.
Thought that might be the case :)
That means a re-implementation, then. In which case the question becomes
whether it's better to do it as an 'ip' subcommand (or even just new
parameters to 'ip link'), or a new top-level utility striving for
compatibility with 'wg'. But that's mostly a UI issue...
-Toke
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-09 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-09 11:56 organization of wireguard linux kernel repos moving forward Jason A. Donenfeld
2019-12-09 12:43 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-12-09 12:49 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2019-12-09 16:01 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-12-09 16:18 ` David Ahern
2019-12-09 16:36 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2019-12-26 17:45 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=875zipihhk.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@toke.dk \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).