From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5102C43387 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 17:58:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (krantz.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5289D218D3 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 17:58:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="WEiGWfYu" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5289D218D3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 14f634cf; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 17:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id e75bcdbe for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2018 16:05:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wr1-x435.google.com (mail-wr1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::435]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 3b48611e for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2018 16:05:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-x435.google.com with SMTP id x10so6482491wrs.8 for ; Sat, 08 Dec 2018 08:13:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=eapxERT730mme64d3sLMhQjxlSrDdGKZjITiE1NMyr4=; b=WEiGWfYuRDbA5YBNLwf7pcKZexfvnrbiyVx7TFGgsT5OX2eYoEdnGSXZWZYqCaxTfu W7XquQFZq/Ada+3PrWoo95seL3ZTDR47yP+ycc+bnaoOW/Wb2WW9kzsbEKzMjXB+2XNV dxiUu6Ke71531z6eN7bwniIzHmKHxC+8Xe8uAkPOkuHd3iwv1zt7AwXR+1um/LuK5Tba mEADL1dBzKZ7LtpgA2oZZn3RIioNPxVkX2fUIrr6q11lDXGurocnbNjcHYnvgjmN1HYW 7CqmCFnfpWc6ZHoGQn3qLn3340kb8Hpg0hytPkucTx56+KlMSrFAx6KeMs9rL/I5mrDp XV3Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=eapxERT730mme64d3sLMhQjxlSrDdGKZjITiE1NMyr4=; b=lSvgiRAZp/yWs3y7lfe+2LtqBNrCKhUOUoFAIBebguCEp0kJUBZBKEuhW1jOyzhZRG O2aLNHKPnJp1L+2VFLehSkp2kV2Xxp4FjLKCCvtb4yU3bI4yDhWaVOz9gtXDFaU3gDab 9j+wbALiQDbTxgwDJsFNcMgAMwT+q115naZj62FbsksWbMibgw9Qn2a7QcSTTioL39Z8 x2qlVoydr7Kc/C4UBaJ0vNzhZPVNZVyJMWyfUiiiX06XhgUtLq40oWN+D5k9DL2mc0Nv nDV8+wsq/yhS8ufLKnHq8Sc0ksEu1j3ukAtFQB1JJBWoy7eJhENqRilIFjnmac3qIVQL yqvw== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWb1wjcv9NrLOT+lriVvs2fNbITkVE2yhxu1uOPAAOTZv7zjDXe7 c0m+Del1alMuqmXxkiZx04gDxV6caUKnOfFA99Xahw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Wabf9Q65+YaAISaTCiJP5aRg+YLLTnQWdMqEVU6j9N2tMPvZI32/vj+vNozVLjT+QY/kjr59J8JuEE98cwQkw= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:67cf:: with SMTP id n15mr4752778wrw.211.1544285631821; Sat, 08 Dec 2018 08:13:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: dan Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 09:13:37 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: wireguard + udpspeeder or tinyfecvpn or similar fec To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 18:56:20 +0100 X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" Is there any consideration being given to adding fec to wireguard? udpspeeder and tinyfecvpn are good examples here but they lack essentially everything that makes wireguard great. It's not ideal to run udpspeeder first and then wireguard over the top because you lose wireguards roaming capabilities and more. It's not ideal to run udpspeeder over a wireguard tunnel because it's basically just hard to utilize. it's *wierd* to establish a wireguard tunnel, then a udpspeeder tunnel, and then another wireguard tunnel on top of that. too many layers, chopping down MTU too much to make it happen. it would be fantastic to have wireguard integrate some fec capabilities natively. I know that simplicity is a big part of this, but it's not a very reasonable option to stack this stuff up in layers as that's substantially higher complexity. tinyfecvpn is a layer3 tunnel on top of udp speeder. you can do wireguard then tinyfecvpn on top which is somewhat simple *BUT* tinyfecvpn is kind of a loose utility without a decent suite of tools to maintain things. _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard