From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: toke@toke.dk Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id f72ec0d7 for ; Wed, 2 May 2018 16:50:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id ab44fcaa for ; Wed, 2 May 2018 16:50:48 +0000 (UTC) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: vtol@gmx.net, wireguard Subject: Re: WG via systemd (dis)advantage? In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 18:52:32 +0200 Message-ID: <8736za0zlb.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , =D1=BD=D2=89=E1=B6=AC=E1=B8=B3=E2=84=A0 writes: > Debian kernel 4.15.11 > WG 0.0.20180420-1 > > Out of curiosity having WG configured/manged via systemd, which is=20 > working thus far as having the interface up and listening (also after=20 > rebooting the server). > > Now I was looking to manipulate the network interface with some=20 > post-up/post-down which though does not seems applicable with systemd,=20 > like it would be when managed through networking.service. You can't do one-line up/down scripts, but you could create a separate service file and have it depend on the wg interface... > Hence, wondering whether I miss something about systemd or whether it is= =20 > rather a bit of a disadvantage to configure/manage WG through systemd as= =20 > opposed to networking.service? > What is the benefit of systemd vs. networking.service WG management? If you're using systemd-networkd to configure the rest of your networking, having wireguard configured the same way can be useful; and systemd-networkd can manage dependencies between interfaces as well (to a certain extent). However, as you note, things like running arbitrary scripts is a bit more of a hassle... -Toke