Re: WG interface to ipv4

[Riccardo Berto <riccardo@rcrdbrt.com>]

> The current concept of WG has indeed certain pros over other VPN
> solutions, but like most everything else in life, it has its cons too
> and it will be determined by the user what suits best. Time will tell
> the adoption/penetration level of WG is achieving. For me unfortunately
> the cons (not just what is mentioned in this thread) are outweighing 
> the
> pros in WG's current state and thus departing from WG for the time 
> being
> but keeping an eye on future developments.

If the cons of WireGuard are that it gives the users less freedom to 
make mistakes, then I'm all for it.

I don't really get why the iface bindings should be accomplished at the 
WireGuard level. If I get it correctly, it won't be safer than it 
already is.
WireGuard just has to provide a secure and standard network interface. 
There are other full-featured, clogged VPNs out there that can even make 
you the coffee, I'd like WireGuard to stand out and stick to the 
original "UNIX tools philosophy": do one thing and do it well.