2 ms·
I see WireGuard as a very promising VPN protocol. It should be easy to build e.g. higher level configuration protocols for DNS and such on top of it. WireGuard
by vesinisa 7y ago
I see WireGuard as a very promising VPN protocol. It should be easy to build e.g. higher level configuration protocols for DNS and such on top of it. WireGuard itself seems to adhere well to the Unix philosophy of doing just one thing and doing it really well.
With OpenVPN you have all the bells and whistles, and it's easy to get tripped up in the myriad of configuration options. With WireGuard you start with the fundamentals: establishing the tunnel interface. Then you start adding routing, DNS etc. to suite your specific scenario.
- bscphil 7y ago> I see WireGuard as a very promising VPN protocol. It should be easy to build e.g. higher level configuration protocols for DNS and such on top of it. You're 100% correct about this, but I think it's easy to miss that you could say very similar things about all sorts of very well designed, low-level technologies, that for years no one has bothered to build the necessary high level tooling around! Magic Wormhole is another great example: it's a brilliant system, it's even very easy to use from the terminal, but nobody has bothered to build a GUI around it or create any of the more complicated (but awesome!) tooling that the wormhole protocol allows. (At least as of the last time I looked into this.)
- BiteCode_dev 7y agoThere is a lot of overlap between wormhole and webrtc thought, and using it as a channel has been on the road map for a long time. So maybe people knowledgeable enough to build it just waited for it, or went to apply PAKE like rdv on top of webrtc.