WireGuard - Public Room Timeline

	WireGuard	586 Members
	Unofficial matrix channel about wireguard related stuff. Everything about installation, administration and usage can be discussed here! Wireguard - the fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel	78 Servers

Load older messages

Sender	Message	Time
27 May 2023
quditwolf	* I already have a 25s thing configured on B, I don't get how adding that to A would help, Since when the existing connection breaks(B changes networks/ips), A has no way to talk to B or initiate a connection. Unless B initiates it first. And if B can do that then we already have a connection. Nevertheless I'll try it when I'm on B in a while.	13:37:13
quditwolf	I think it works now... even without the Persistent keepalive conf on A... thx madamada	16:10:35
quditwolf	* I think it works now... though even without the Persistent keepalive conf on A... thx madamada	16:10:43
quditwolf	In reply to @quditwolf:matrix.org hello people, I have two wireguard clients, A and B A has a public static ip, and B is behind NAT and is roaming(non static ip). everything works when B doesn't change it's ip. I have added the persistent-keepalive config so that the NAT tunnel doesn't close. When B changes it's ip, the connection ends. Because A's enpoint(public+static) is still reachable via B, I think the persistent-keepalive packet goes through. Should the persistent-keepalive packet update the endpoint ip to the new one on A? update: yeah it should update the endpoint automatically on A. reading up wireguard docs on their website, I found that the endpoints update automatically when the arriving packet is from a different endpoint than before. (for both A -> B and B -> A). so unless both the endpoints change in between packets, wireguard can adapt to the changing ips. So having a packet sent from B to A every once in a while to update A's endpoint should be enough(persistentkeepalive in B's conf)	16:11:33
madamada	yep, WG does that automatically	16:40:21
madamada	good to know it works for you now	16:40:56
quditwolf	another question, though not directly related to wireguard, I actually have two wireguard peers on the local nat, B1 & B2, B2 always stays at home on the home-lan and B1 sometimes goes roaming, B1 routes to B2 fine through the lan, but when B1 goes roaming, it loses the connection to B2 (obviously) I know how to route traffic to B2 via A, ip forwarding + iptables/nft on A, and that will work everywhere. but B1 will always route to B2 through A even if B1 is at home...(increased latency,server charges and what not) how do I setup routing such that (B1 <-> B2) when B1 is at home if possible, else route through A (B1 <-> A <-> B2)... I don't think this happens automatically if I add both routes in my wg0.conf, it defaults to the B1 <-> B2 even if that's not reachable...	16:54:27
quditwolf	* another question, though not directly related to wireguard, I actually have two wireguard peers on the local nat, B1 & B2, B2 always stays at home on the home-lan and B1 sometimes goes roaming, B1 routes to B2 fine through the lan, but when B1 goes roaming, it loses the connection to B2 (obviously) I know how to route traffic to B2 via A, ip forwarding + iptables/nft on A, and that will work everywhere. but B1 will always route to B2 through A even if B1 is at home...(increased latency,server charges and what not) how do I setup routing such that (B1 <-> B2) when B1 is at home if possible, else route through A (B1 <-> A <-> B2)... I don't think this happens automatically, cause if I add both routes in my wg0.conf, it defaults to the B1 <-> B2 even if that's not reachable...	16:54:47
quditwolf	* another question, though not directly related to wireguard, I actually have two wireguard peers on the local nat, B1 & B2, B2 always stays at home on the home-lan and B1 sometimes goes roaming, B1 routes to B2 fine through the lan, but when B1 goes roaming, it loses the connection to B2 (obviously) I know how to route traffic to B2 via A, ip forwarding + iptables/nft on A, and that will work everywhere. but B1 will always route to B2 through A even if B1 is at home...(increased latency,server charges and what not) how do I setup routing such that (B1 <-> B2) when B1 is at home if possible, else route through A (B1 <-> A <-> B2)... I don't think this happens automatically, cause if I add both routes, it defaults to the B1 <-> B2 even if that's not reachable...	16:54:59
quditwolf	* another question, though not directly related to wireguard, I actually have two wireguard peers on the local nat, B1 & B2, B2 always stays at home on the home-lan and B1 sometimes goes roaming, B1 routes to B2 fine through the lan, but when B1 goes roaming, it loses the connection to B2 (obviously) I know how to route traffic to B2 via A, ip forwarding + iptables/nft on A, and that will work everywhere. but B1 will always route to B2 through A even if B1 is at home...(increased latency,server charges and what not) how do I setup routing such that (B1 <-> B2) when B1 is at home if possible, else route through A (B1 <-> A <-> B2)... I don't think this happens automatically, cause if I add both routes, it defaults to the B1 <-> B2 even if that's not reachable... or should it?	16:55:05
quditwolf	* another question, though not directly related to wireguard, I actually have two wireguard peers on the local nat, B1 & B2, B2 always stays at home on the home-lan and B1 sometimes goes roaming, B1 routes to B2 fine through the lan, but when B1 goes roaming, it loses the connection to B2 (obviously) I know how to route traffic to B2 via A, ip forwarding + iptables/nft on A, and that will work everywhere. but B1 will always route to B2 through A even if B1 is at home...(increased latency,server charges and what not) how do I setup routing such that (B1 <-> B2) when B1 is at home if possible, else route through A (B1 <-> A <-> B2)... I don't think this happens automaticall(should it?), cause if I add both routes, it defaults to the B1 <-> B2 even if that's not reachable...	17:07:33
madamada	maybe write a script that changes the routes base on where it's connecting from or connecting to	17:37:48
28 May 2023
quditwolf	Wrote a network manager dispatcher script, runs on network change... to remove the allowed ip from the peerB2 and it'll default to route through A. What would be a nice event driven way to do it on B2? Since B1 just drops off without notice to B2. And when B1 connects to B2, it appears to B2 as if A is making the request(I think)...	16:25:55
quditwolf	* Wrote a network manager dispatcher script, which runs on network connectivity change... It checks if B2 is locally reachable and if not, removes the allowed ip from the peer B2 and it'll default to route through A. What would be a nice event driven way to do it on B2? Since B1 just drops off without notice to B2. And when B1 connects to B2, it appears to B2 as if A is making the request(I think)...	16:27:00
madamada	that's expected of B2	19:26:37
madamada	on B2, u could write something that checks the change of B1 and if true, update it's end	19:28:19
31 May 2023
	Doppler joined the room.	08:11:18
	foxfyre joined the room.	15:27:31
foxfyre	Easy Q. Home setup as "host" for devices to tunnel into. Works well except I'm not getting google push notifications. I've read I need to open ports 5228-5230. Would I forward them to the Lan or WG0 interface?	15:28:55
quditwolf	you use that host as a vpn for those devices(which are not getting the notifications?)	16:07:46
foxfyre	In reply to @quditwolf:matrix.org you use that host as a vpn for those devices(which are not getting the notifications?) Correct	16:11:24
quditwolf	* you use that host as a vpn for those devices(which are not getting the notifications)?	16:11:37
quditwolf	I have no idea how google's push notifs work but they probably work behind NAT(most people are behind NAT, and they must work for most people :) and NAT has no open inbound ports... maybe the tunnel dies and the push fails? maybe a persistent-keepalive config can help...	16:17:28
foxfyre	already have it at 25 :(	16:17:48
quditwolf	In reply to foxfyre Easy Q. Home setup as "host" for devices to tunnel into. Works well except I'm not getting google push notifications. I've read I need to open ports 5228-5230. Would I forward them to the Lan or WG0 interface? you'd have to forward them to wg0 I think.	16:24:34
foxfyre	In reply to @quditwolf:matrix.org you'd have to forward them to wg0 I think. I think so to, ty for the thoughts.	16:28:14
foxfyre	In reply to @quditwolf:matrix.org you'd have to forward them to wg0 I think. * I think so too, ty for the thoughts.	16:28:20
foxfyre	I could allow google play services to not be tunnled but that kinda feels dirty	16:28:41
1 Jun 2023
baba	Latest version need sensor permission in user profile/ second profile. Its bad	15:16:02
baba	In reply to @mazyanibaba:matrix.org Latest version need sensor permission in user profile/ second profile. Its bad I cant receive packets, while the tunnel sucessfully connected. I only see transfer bits	15:24:33

There are no newer messages yet.

Back to Room ListRoom Version: 5