4 ms·

Asked differently, do you plan on explicitly disallowing/banning it if people unofficially ran the reference implementation against Warp? It would be nice to k

Asked differently, do you plan on explicitly disallowing/banning it if people unofficially ran the reference implementation against Warp? It would be nice to know the policy there. For those of us that do know what a VPN is, and are okay not having access to support, getting things to work without a desktop app would be nice.

jgrahamc 8y ago
I think my answer was pretty clear. We do not currently plan to allow stock WireGuard clients to use Warp. I say, currently, because things can always change. It's important to appreciate that we have literally millions of users for the 1.1.1.1 App and we are rolling out a free VPN for them. That is a huge support and network burden that we have to deal with to make that experience work well. Yes, we use WireGuard under the hood (and have open sourced our Rust code), but the additional cost of supporting people connecting from their WireGuard clients means that we don't want to support that _today_. Please bear with us while we get through a massive roll out.
- newaccoutnas 8y ago
  What's the reasoning behind this[1]? It strikes of ulterior motives and turns me off, as a potential user. Any official response from Cloudflare? [1]https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-March/004048.html https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-March/00404...
  - jgrahamc 8y ago
    We're really happy to work with the WireGuard. We communicated with Jason throughout the process and have a ton of respect for him and the entire WireGuard community. In the short term, we need the flexibility to quickly update our code base to support the project we built it for. That's harder when you need to coordinate with people outside Cloudflare and when we need to move as fast as we plan to. However, we really believe in open source and want the WireGuard community to thrive. We licensed the code very openly (3-clause BSD) and WireGuard may choose to fork it. If they do, we'll support it and plan to contribute any improvements in our own fork back. Over the long term, we're very open to merging this back into the upstream project.
    - newaccoutnas 8y ago
      Thanks for the reply. From what I understand, Jason was willing to make your guys head of a sub-project. I'm failing to see how this would hinder your development, considering you've probably got your own build and deployment systems anyway. The way you've done it feels like a 'chuck the code over the fence' style of interaction, which again - I can't see any rationale, from a project perspective (imho)
- packet_nerd 8y ago
  > huge support and network burden I don't think anyone on Linux setting up and tweaking WireGuard to integrate with CloudFlare's free network expects to be able to call up support and be like "hey, I need help debugging my custom client." :-) As far as network burden, you're just concerned that we'll be using too much traffic?
- arghwhat 8y ago
  Thank you for clarifying. There is a big difference between supporting something, and stopping it from happening. It's Cloudflare's service, and of course entirely Cloudflare's decision how it is permitted used. I just hope that, in the future, it will be allowed (but not necessarily *supported) to use stock clients rather than desktop apps (which many of us Linux people would dislike). :) Good luck with the massive deployment!

jgrahamc 8y ago

I think my answer was pretty clear. We do not currently plan to allow stock WireGuard clients to use Warp. I say, currently, because things can always change. It's important to appreciate that we have literally millions of users for the 1.1.1.1 App and we are rolling out a free VPN for them. That is a huge support and network burden that we have to deal with to make that experience work well. Yes, we use WireGuard under the hood (and have open sourced our Rust code), but the additional cost of supporting people connecting from their WireGuard clients means that we don't want to support that _today_. Please bear with us while we get through a massive roll out.

newaccoutnas 8y ago
What's the reasoning behind this[1]? It strikes of ulterior motives and turns me off, as a potential user. Any official response from Cloudflare? [1]https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-March/004048.html https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-March/00404...
- jgrahamc 8y ago
  We're really happy to work with the WireGuard. We communicated with Jason throughout the process and have a ton of respect for him and the entire WireGuard community. In the short term, we need the flexibility to quickly update our code base to support the project we built it for. That's harder when you need to coordinate with people outside Cloudflare and when we need to move as fast as we plan to. However, we really believe in open source and want the WireGuard community to thrive. We licensed the code very openly (3-clause BSD) and WireGuard may choose to fork it. If they do, we'll support it and plan to contribute any improvements in our own fork back. Over the long term, we're very open to merging this back into the upstream project.
  - newaccoutnas 8y ago
    Thanks for the reply. From what I understand, Jason was willing to make your guys head of a sub-project. I'm failing to see how this would hinder your development, considering you've probably got your own build and deployment systems anyway. The way you've done it feels like a 'chuck the code over the fence' style of interaction, which again - I can't see any rationale, from a project perspective (imho)
packet_nerd 8y ago
> huge support and network burden I don't think anyone on Linux setting up and tweaking WireGuard to integrate with CloudFlare's free network expects to be able to call up support and be like "hey, I need help debugging my custom client." :-) As far as network burden, you're just concerned that we'll be using too much traffic?
arghwhat 8y ago
Thank you for clarifying. There is a big difference between supporting something, and stopping it from happening. It's Cloudflare's service, and of course entirely Cloudflare's decision how it is permitted used. I just hope that, in the future, it will be allowed (but not necessarily *supported) to use stock clients rather than desktop apps (which many of us Linux people would dislike). :) Good luck with the massive deployment!