From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: riccardo@rcrdbrt.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 0406bfdb for ; Tue, 8 May 2018 15:42:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.rcrdbrt.com (rcrdbrt.com [45.32.6.71]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 89df8364 for ; Tue, 8 May 2018 15:42:30 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 17:44:56 +0200 From: Riccardo Berto To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com Subject: Re: WG interface to ipv4 Message-ID: <4f1f154f85bb01204c883e37e41eba86@rcrdbrt.com> List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > 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.