12 ms·
Yes, I understand the performance gain. But the difference here with respect to management, presumably, would be that when this is loaded/compiled in the kernel
by drvdevd 10y ago
Yes, I understand the performance gain. But the difference here with respect to management, presumably, would be that when this is loaded/compiled in the kernel, less userspace setup would be required -- correct? I'm assuming it would just show up like an available network device at boot. I need to watch the talk still.
I know doing the same for TUN/TAP is not a leap really, but it's one more thing to have to consider. Also I have no idea what the performance implications of TUN/TAP are either (although I frequently use both, I've never measured it).
- agwa 10y ago> But the difference here with respect to management, presumably, would be that when this is loaded/compiled in the kernel, less userspace setup would be required -- correct? I'm assuming it would just show up like an available network device at boot. No, you have to explicitly add the interface with the wg command, much like you have to explicitly run a command that starts a TUN/TAP VPN. And once those commands are run, both WireGuard and TUN/TAP interfaces look just like normal interfaces and can be managed using standard tools. WireGuard could be implemented in user space and be just as easy to use and manage. The only benefit from running in kernel space is performance.