Sender | Message | Time |
---|---|---|
27 May 2023 | ||
* 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 | |
I think it works now... even without the Persistent keepalive conf on A... thx madamada | 16:10:35 | |
* I think it works now... though even without the Persistent keepalive conf on A... thx madamada | 16:10:43 | |
In reply to @quditwolf:matrix.org update: reading up wireguard docs on their website, | 16:11:33 | |
yep, WG does that automatically | 16:40:21 | |
good to know it works for you now | 16:40:56 | |
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 | |
* 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 | |
* 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 | |
* 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 | |
* 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 | |
maybe write a script that changes the routes base on where it's connecting from or connecting to | 17:37:48 | |
28 May 2023 | ||
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 | |
* 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 | |
that's expected of B2 | 19:26:37 | |
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 | ||
08:11:18 | ||
15:27:31 | ||
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 | |
you use that host as a vpn for those devices(which are not getting the notifications?) | 16:07:46 | |
In reply to @quditwolf:matrix.orgCorrect | 16:11:24 | |
* you use that host as a vpn for those devices(which are not getting the notifications)? | 16:11:37 | |
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 | |
already have it at 25 :( | 16:17:48 | |
In reply to foxfyreyou'd have to forward them to wg0 I think. | 16:24:34 | |
In reply to @quditwolf:matrix.orgI think so to, ty for the thoughts. | 16:28:14 | |
In reply to @quditwolf:matrix.org* I think so too, ty for the thoughts. | 16:28:20 | |
I could allow google play services to not be tunnled but that kinda feels dirty | 16:28:41 | |
1 Jun 2023 | ||
Latest version need sensor permission in user profile/ second profile. Its bad | 15:16:02 | |
In reply to @mazyanibaba:matrix.orgI cant receive packets, while the tunnel sucessfully connected. I only see transfer bits | 15:24:33 |