4 ms·

Do you mind sharing which “VPN” alternative this is? Thanks!

feelin_googley 9y ago
tptacek seems to know what it is. I have never mentioned it by name, I have never seen him mention it either, and I don't use the "vanilla" version as written by the original author (e.g. signifcant amount of code has been removed), so how could he know? Anyway, since he is apparently clairvoyant I'll let him tell you what software I am using.
- sigjuice 9y ago
  ?
- sigjuice 9y ago
  I found your post interesting. What you describe looks like something I might want to use or at least experiment with. That was the reason I requested information on the software you were using. I don't know 'tptacek' or how he is involved in this.
- geofft 9y ago
  Does he? He said that a similar design is straightforward. In 2014 I wrote up a spec for something that exactly matches that comment (linking tun/tap devices via Curve25519-protected UDP) and started implementing it. I know you're not using that because I never finished it. My employer shut down shortly thereafter and I wasn't able to transfer ownership of the IP to myself. So this isn't a nonobvious idea. There's no clairvoyance required.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - feelin_googley 9y ago
    I fail to see how the "obviousness" of the software I choose to use has anything to do with the simple question I posed: Is WireGuard portable? The fundamental idea of using /dev/tap to accomplish peer-to-peer networking goes back further than when this software was written and further back than Curve25519. Who cares? This is a silly tangent. The point about clairvoyance is that one cannot criticise software just because it uses /dev/tap. One needs to know much more than that. He does not know what software it is I am using, only that I'm not using WireGuard (yet). He does not know how I am using it, what changes I have made or what my particular needs are as a user. But it seems he wants to put down someone else's choice of (undisclosed) software and elevate his own choice, as a WireGuard user. I have seen this sort of "commentary" before, too many times. The need to tell others what software is good, bad, what they should or should not use, etc. This is done unsolicited, without knowing anything about the users particular needs and use cases, without providing detailed technical reasons for their opinions, and at least with this particular user, it is often worded in some ridiculous didactic style. To be clear, I am referring to countless posts by this particular member over many years to the aggravation of other users, not simply the one comment in this thread. There are reasons I try to avoid naming software; one is because of commentary like this, by HN members eager to criticize others' software choices without any justification. I am really tired of this sort of commentary and the childish attitude it represents. Trust me when I say that the details of the design of the software I am using are unique amongst the open source Layer 2 alternatives. While they are all perhaps obvious and easy to implement, they have not been selected by the alternatives, for whatever reasons. I sincerely doubt one could guess the details of this design, let alone the code itself, just from my mentioning it includes a userspace program utilising /dev/tap. And even if they could, who cares? This is a useless tangent. The question was: Is WireGuard portable? Apologies to anyone reading this for the distraction I inadvertently triggered. Focus should be on WireGuard.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
randywaterhouse 9y ago
While I have no idea given the... oddity... of this subthread, I might posit `tinc` is being referred to here: https://www.tinc-vpn.org/faq/ https://www.tinc-vpn.org/faq/ ETA: this is based on the open source code which may be modified, userland daemon status, /dev/tap usage... Portability... etc. In any case - tinc is excellent
- feelin_googley 9y ago
  FWIW, that is not what I use. I should have not mentioned anything about other software. It is irrelevant to the question. The question was/is: How portable is WireGuard?
  - davrosthedalek 9y ago
    Or, you could just say what you are using. Is there a reason you don't?
  - darklajid 9y ago
    https://www.wireguard.com/xplatform/ https://www.wireguard.com/xplatform/ There exist closed source third party clients for Windows/OS X, and wireguard itself has currently two (unreleased) reference libraries in Go and Rust to support future cross-platform clients. So the answer to "how portable" is probably "portable" :-) (I don't know if there are any plans for _kernel_ mode implementations for anything but Linux, but cross-platform user mode clients are part of the project's goals)
    - feelin_googley 9y ago
      Thank you. It sounds like portability may come via a userspace program. I look forward to it.

tptacek seems to know what it is. I have never mentioned it by name, I have never seen him mention it either, and I don't use the "vanilla" version as written by the original author (e.g. signifcant amount of code has been removed), so how could he know? Anyway, since he is apparently clairvoyant I'll let him tell you what software I am using.

sigjuice 9y ago
?
sigjuice 9y ago
I found your post interesting. What you describe looks like something I might want to use or at least experiment with. That was the reason I requested information on the software you were using. I don't know 'tptacek' or how he is involved in this.
geofft 9y ago
Does he? He said that a similar design is straightforward. In 2014 I wrote up a spec for something that exactly matches that comment (linking tun/tap devices via Curve25519-protected UDP) and started implementing it. I know you're not using that because I never finished it. My employer shut down shortly thereafter and I wasn't able to transfer ownership of the IP to myself. So this isn't a nonobvious idea. There's no clairvoyance required.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- feelin_googley 9y ago
  I fail to see how the "obviousness" of the software I choose to use has anything to do with the simple question I posed: Is WireGuard portable? The fundamental idea of using /dev/tap to accomplish peer-to-peer networking goes back further than when this software was written and further back than Curve25519. Who cares? This is a silly tangent. The point about clairvoyance is that one cannot criticise software just because it uses /dev/tap. One needs to know much more than that. He does not know what software it is I am using, only that I'm not using WireGuard (yet). He does not know how I am using it, what changes I have made or what my particular needs are as a user. But it seems he wants to put down someone else's choice of (undisclosed) software and elevate his own choice, as a WireGuard user. I have seen this sort of "commentary" before, too many times. The need to tell others what software is good, bad, what they should or should not use, etc. This is done unsolicited, without knowing anything about the users particular needs and use cases, without providing detailed technical reasons for their opinions, and at least with this particular user, it is often worded in some ridiculous didactic style. To be clear, I am referring to countless posts by this particular member over many years to the aggravation of other users, not simply the one comment in this thread. There are reasons I try to avoid naming software; one is because of commentary like this, by HN members eager to criticize others' software choices without any justification. I am really tired of this sort of commentary and the childish attitude it represents. Trust me when I say that the details of the design of the software I am using are unique amongst the open source Layer 2 alternatives. While they are all perhaps obvious and easy to implement, they have not been selected by the alternatives, for whatever reasons. I sincerely doubt one could guess the details of this design, let alone the code itself, just from my mentioning it includes a userspace program utilising /dev/tap. And even if they could, who cares? This is a useless tangent. The question was: Is WireGuard portable? Apologies to anyone reading this for the distraction I inadvertently triggered. Focus should be on WireGuard.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

randywaterhouse 9y ago

While I have no idea given the... oddity... of this subthread, I might posit `tinc` is being referred to here: https://www.tinc-vpn.org/faq/ https://www.tinc-vpn.org/faq/ ETA: this is based on the open source code which may be modified, userland daemon status, /dev/tap usage... Portability... etc. In any case - tinc is excellent

feelin_googley 9y ago
FWIW, that is not what I use. I should have not mentioned anything about other software. It is irrelevant to the question. The question was/is: How portable is WireGuard?
- davrosthedalek 9y ago
  Or, you could just say what you are using. Is there a reason you don't?
- darklajid 9y ago
  https://www.wireguard.com/xplatform/ https://www.wireguard.com/xplatform/ There exist closed source third party clients for Windows/OS X, and wireguard itself has currently two (unreleased) reference libraries in Go and Rust to support future cross-platform clients. So the answer to "how portable" is probably "portable" :-) (I don't know if there are any plans for _kernel_ mode implementations for anything but Linux, but cross-platform user mode clients are part of the project's goals)
  - feelin_googley 9y ago
    Thank you. It sounds like portability may come via a userspace program. I look forward to it.