From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, PDS_BAD_THREAD_QP_64,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61013C433DB for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:17:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.zx2c4.com (lists.zx2c4.com [165.227.139.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BBB264E24 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:17:16 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7BBB264E24 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=lindenberg.one Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 296ac9e2; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:17:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailarchive.lindenberg.one (mailarchive.lindenberg.one [5.45.107.185]) by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id 50eceb29 (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:17:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 4A96AE23B3 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:17:12 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lindenberg.one; s=dkim180429; t=1614287832; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; bh=2BhYOmuNAnJ0mmPl09MUaQmc2+zMTRtSc2bW3qKHoiU=; b=igNfY9ALS5wDxbavy7VIsEADJwuf7oyuWb+qj2V5dGWq0VQZoOvuMgzoKkl52AddekVNx6 OBXF5EeI1RAIpN+SldkdvcWO2CZ39rch+qwNShrmgzzV2bhcmpt3UBceKhxJOiqrUH+N9x PT3pU7hWr7/M1HXbZQBP+A0hJOgwfJBwSm2ASt77frC7vaHl7fObI1+9Mvz/uGIzCagSf1 x5nJjYGTj6DXn1NgwO2myVaedUGP8Zw2akSdUfeyzJoJ1/DpsDamvR598AXyYEOYKSwWiL AJGUximpWXpejktd0OXfe93WK2EHMJxrLcSfdCL56TRHobr5x/0YBl+mz2YeGg== From: "Joachim Lindenberg" To: "'WireGuard mailing list'" Subject: best way for redundancy? Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:17:06 +0100 Message-ID: <03ff01d70bbb$953d4750$bfb7d5f0$@lindenberg.one> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03F3_01D70BC3.BC357FF0"; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thread-Index: AQE+hwIAWYrP/YPvbDhwUEJcpF2BHA== Content-Language: en-de X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.2 X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30rc1 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" Hello I do have a wireguard VPN that connects multiple sites. Unfortunately = some routers are not available all the time, causing network disruption. = I=C2=B4d like to improve connectivity via redundancy, i.e. add multiple = routers that connect the networks. What are the options to do that using wireguard? Can I have multiple = peers with different keys and endpoint but same Allowed IPs? Will = wireguard select the one available? Any suggestions? Thanks, Joachim