Re: WG load balancing?

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

Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> writes:

> Hello list,
>
> Assume a branch office with two uplinks to the Internet that wants to
> use WG to talk to the main office, using both of these uplinks in
> parallel (assuming they're both up) for better uplink speed (and for
> redundancy if they aren't). Now the obvious idea is to create two WG
> interfaces on each side, and add a couple of firewall rules to make sure
> that packets fwmarked 1 go out on the first uplink, and so on.
>
> That's the easy part. The hard part is how to teach the kernel to load
> balance its default route between the WG interfaces. I tried to use a
> libteam or bonding interface to tie them together, but apparently WG
> isn't Ethernet, so that doesn't work.
>
> I thought about using a GRE tunnel, but tunnels have fixed endpoint
> addresses =E2=80=93 somehow I don't think it'd be a good idea to create t=
wo
> wireguard interfaces with the same IP address =E2=80=A6 and I don't reall=
y want
> to do heavy-handed address mangling on every packet. Losing all
> connectivity whenever I happen to flush my firewall tables doesn't
> appeal to me.

You could create GRE tunnels on the internal IP addresses of the
wireguard interface? Or use the kernel's ECMP routing as suggested by
Tim :)

-Toke