Re: WG via systemd (dis)advantage?

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>]

=D1=BD=D2=89=E1=B6=AC=E1=B8=B3=E2=84=A0 <vtol@gmx.net> 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