5 ms·

Well, this is a network where only SSH and one or two more TCP ports are open, and it's not something I can "get fixed". Still, I do not have any practical rea

by pferde 8y ago

Well, this is a network where only SSH and one or two more TCP ports are open, and it's not something I can "get fixed". Still, I do not have any practical reason for switching to Wireguard, as I do not really see any reduced speed - it is possible that the bandwidth limitation of this network's internet connection is low enough for that to be the bottleneck, instead of OpenVPN. :)

arghwhat 8y ago
> Well, this is a network where only SSH and one or two more TCP ports are open, and it's not something I can "get fixed". Are the other TCP ports, as well as UDP blocked by a force of nature? :) > Still, I do not have any practical reason for switching to Wireguard, as I do not really see any reduced speed - it is possible that the bandwidth limitation of this network's internet connection is low enough for that to be the bottleneck, instead of OpenVPN. :) At lower throughput networks, you don't need wireguard. It'll still mean fewer CPU resources used, much simpler configuration, and things OpenVPN and the likes just cannot do (such as maintain the connection despite both ends changing IP, as long as it doesn't happen simultaneously).
- phs2501 8y ago
  > Are the other TCP ports, as well as UDP blocked by a force of nature? :) Yes; the force in question is usually spelled out as "auditors." :(
  - arghwhat 8y ago
    Ah, that force. Does this force allow VPNs, or are you just reusing existing open ports for... alternative purposes? :) In case of the former, then Wireguard will likely be permitted some day as the status quo of VPNs. OpenVPN and IPSec appear as dead ends, so it's just a matter of time. If Wireguard is successfully upstreamed soon, I wouldn't be surprised if it rose to the throne of VPN monopoly sooner rather than later. In case of the latter, you're out of luck without a compat mode or a bridge tool... :/
    - pferde 8y ago
      Unfortunately, it's the latter. :)

by pferde 8y ago

arghwhat 8y ago

> Well, this is a network where only SSH and one or two more TCP ports are open, and it's not something I can "get fixed". Are the other TCP ports, as well as UDP blocked by a force of nature? :) > Still, I do not have any practical reason for switching to Wireguard, as I do not really see any reduced speed - it is possible that the bandwidth limitation of this network's internet connection is low enough for that to be the bottleneck, instead of OpenVPN. :) At lower throughput networks, you don't need wireguard. It'll still mean fewer CPU resources used, much simpler configuration, and things OpenVPN and the likes just cannot do (such as maintain the connection despite both ends changing IP, as long as it doesn't happen simultaneously).

phs2501 8y ago
> Are the other TCP ports, as well as UDP blocked by a force of nature? :) Yes; the force in question is usually spelled out as "auditors." :(
- arghwhat 8y ago
  Ah, that force. Does this force allow VPNs, or are you just reusing existing open ports for... alternative purposes? :) In case of the former, then Wireguard will likely be permitted some day as the status quo of VPNs. OpenVPN and IPSec appear as dead ends, so it's just a matter of time. If Wireguard is successfully upstreamed soon, I wouldn't be surprised if it rose to the throne of VPN monopoly sooner rather than later. In case of the latter, you're out of luck without a compat mode or a bridge tool... :/
  - pferde 8y ago
    Unfortunately, it's the latter. :)