3 ms·
Context? For those of us who have never heard of Wireguard, I can click on the linked Wireguard image to at least see what it is. Cool, I guess? If it was a st
by rconti 9y ago
Context?
For those of us who have never heard of Wireguard, I can click on the linked Wireguard image to at least see what it is. Cool, I guess? If it was a standalone link on HN ("hey, look what we made!") it would make a lot more sense, but since it's a G+ post, it's more about the blog-type content. I guess the main point is the discussion of merging it into the (Linux?) kernel tree, but... yeah.
- majewsky 9y agoWireguard by itself has been on HN for a few times now. The newsworthy part is that one of the top kernel developers is expressing interest in bringing it into mainline, so it is appropriate to submit that post instead of the Wireguard homepage.
- rconti 9y agoThanks! I didn't realize who Greg was either, so I was missing the 2 pieces of context necessary for the post to make any sense.
- dsr_ 9y agoIf you haven't picked it up from context: Wireguard is a VPN that provides a virtual network interface (wg0, wg1...) which can be routed, firewalled, and so forth. Notable bits: very little code, so it's easy to audit. Very few options, so it's easy to get it do what it does. Very simple config, as a result of the very few options. Basically, take all the things which drive people crazy about IPsec (all the options, all the choices, the difficulty of debugging, the multiphase negotiations, the usual policy routing rather than interface routing) and make them go away by not just choosing reasonable defaults but not even providing the capability to make different choices. Finally, it is pretty fast.