IPv6 endpoint AND IPv4 fallback endpoint in roadwarrior scenario?

IPv6 endpoint AND IPv4 fallback endpoint in roadwarrior scenario?

[Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics]

Hi,

is it meanwhile possible to define an IPv6 endpoint AND and an IPv4 endpoint as fallback
in case a road warrior does not get IPv6 connectivity when switching internet sockets?

Regards,

Renne
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

Re: IPv6 endpoint AND IPv4 fallback endpoint in roadwarrior scenario?

[Ulrich Kalloch]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 526 bytes --]

Hello @ all

i am interested in this too.

Regards

Ulli

Am 27.05.19 um 20:10 schrieb Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics:
> Hi,
>
> is it meanwhile possible to define an IPv6 endpoint AND and an IPv4
> endpoint as fallback
> in case a road warrior does not get IPv6 connectivity when switching
> internet sockets?
>
> Regards,
>
> Renne
> _______________________________________________
> WireGuard mailing list
> WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard



[-- Attachment #1.1.1.2: 0x44BE4EB74E7625C8.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3987 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 148 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

Re: IPv6 endpoint AND IPv4 fallback endpoint in roadwarrior scenario?

[Henning Reich]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 894 bytes --]

Should a DNS entry Wirth one
AAAA record and one A record solve thus problem? So the OS decide the best
way to connect?

Ulrich Kalloch <ulli@noc23.de> schrieb am So., 29. Sep. 2019, 16:29:

> Hello @ all
>
> i am interested in this too.
>
> Regards
>
> Ulli
>
> Am 27.05.19 um 20:10 schrieb Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics:
> > Hi,
> >
> > is it meanwhile possible to define an IPv6 endpoint AND and an IPv4
> > endpoint as fallback
> > in case a road warrior does not get IPv6 connectivity when switching
> > internet sockets?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Renne
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1689 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 148 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

Re: IPv6 endpoint AND IPv4 fallback endpoint in roadwarrior scenario?

[Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1496 bytes --]

What happens if the DNS-lookup fails (e.g broken or manipulated DNS)?
In my opinion it should be possible to work with static IPv6 addresses 
and fall back to static IPv4 addresses.

Regards,

Renne


Am 29.09.19 um 21:31 schrieb Henning Reich:
> Should a DNS entry Wirth one
> AAAA record and one A record solve thus problem? So the OS decide the 
> best way to connect?
>
> Ulrich Kalloch <ulli@noc23.de <mailto:ulli@noc23.de>> schrieb am So., 
> 29. Sep. 2019, 16:29:
>
>     Hello @ all
>
>     i am interested in this too.
>
>     Regards
>
>     Ulli
>
>     Am 27.05.19 um 20:10 schrieb Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics:
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > is it meanwhile possible to define an IPv6 endpoint AND and an IPv4
>     > endpoint as fallback
>     > in case a road warrior does not get IPv6 connectivity when switching
>     > internet sockets?
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     >
>     > Renne
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > WireGuard mailing list
>     > WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com <mailto: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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WireGuard mailing list
> WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3445 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 148 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

Re: IPv6 endpoint AND IPv4 fallback endpoint in roadwarrior scenario?

[Nico Schottelius]

At lookup time this works already. The problem is, if the underlying
network topology changes and you need to reconnect via IPv4, when you
had IPv6 underlying before.

This is the feature that is - afaik- not currently implemented in
wireguard.


Henning Reich <henning.reich@gmail.com> writes:

> Should a DNS entry Wirth one
> AAAA record and one A record solve thus problem? So the OS decide the best
> way to connect?
>
> Ulrich Kalloch <ulli@noc23.de> schrieb am So., 29. Sep. 2019, 16:29:
>
>> Hello @ all
>>
>> i am interested in this too.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Ulli
>>
>> Am 27.05.19 um 20:10 schrieb Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > is it meanwhile possible to define an IPv6 endpoint AND and an IPv4
>> > endpoint as fallback
>> > in case a road warrior does not get IPv6 connectivity when switching
>> > internet sockets?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Renne
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WireGuard mailing list
> WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard


--
Your Swiss, Open Source and IPv6 Virtual Machine. Now on www.datacenterlight.ch.
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

Re: IPv6 endpoint AND IPv4 fallback endpoint in roadwarrior scenario?

[Kalin KOZHUHAROV]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:53 AM Nico Schottelius
<nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch> wrote:
> At lookup time this works already.
>
yup!

> The problem is, if the underlying network topology changes and you need to reconnect via IPv4,
> when you had IPv6 underlying before.
>
Well, "if the underlying network topology changes" it is better to
detect and update things from OS level.
A restart of the wg interface (and using A/AAAA DNS records) works, so
it just needs to be initiated from whoever is taking care of the OS
network reconfiguration.

I would say that is "outside" feature, shouldn't be implemented at wg level.

Or ... actually, if there are other use cases, a more generic
"self-restart-timer" might be helpful. Something along the lines of
persistent-keepalive, but the reverse.
Persistent-keepalive is a packet send to the remote endpoint as a
one-way throw-and-forget packet, there are many valid configurations
that use it only on one of the ways (e.g. A --> B).
Currently, keepalive packets are discarded on the receive end after
updating the stats (e.g.
https://github.com/WireGuard/WireGuard/blob/0d9758d1afe5f812d5ccfcbb4b7c74f42f50318b/src/receive.c#L362
)

/* A packet with length 0 is a keepalive packet */
if (unlikely(!skb->len)) {
  update_rx_stats(peer, message_data_len(0));
  net_dbg_ratelimited("%s: Receiving keepalive packet from peer %llu
(%pISpfsc)\n",
    dev->name, peer->internal_id,
    &peer->endpoint.addr);
  goto packet_processed;
}

I would say a reverse-keepalive (not the best wording) is to try to
reconnect to the peer if it was off-line (no data or KA-packets) for
some predefined time. This can be measured in number of seconds since
last packet received (KA or data). If such a condition is met,
resetting the interface (and thus redoing DNS lookup) may result in
fixing the link disruption caused by topology change.

Again, this may be better implemented outside wireguard since the
timeout is available e.g. via `wg show <INTERFACE> latest-handshakes`
command.

Cheers,
Kalin.
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

Re: IPv6 endpoint AND IPv4 fallback endpoint in roadwarrior scenario?

[mikma.wg]

On 2019-09-30 09:52, Nico Schottelius wrote:
> 
> At lookup time this works already. The problem is, if the underlying
> network topology changes and you need to reconnect via IPv4, when you
> had IPv6 underlying before.

It doesn't work for me at least not with the Android app. I have a DNS 
name with both AAAA and A records that I use but the app seems to prefer 
IPv4 instead of IPv6. And I also can't detect any fallback to IPv6 if 
ICMP unreachable are sent for the IPv4 handshake attempts.

/Mikma

> 
> This is the feature that is - afaik- not currently implemented in
> wireguard.
> 
> 
> Henning Reich <henning.reich@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Should a DNS entry Wirth one
>> AAAA record and one A record solve thus problem? So the OS decide the best
>> way to connect?
>>
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard