Re: are WG clients expected to automatically handle it when the endpoint is within the AllowedIPs

Christoph Anton Mitterer <[email protected]>
Newsgroups com.zx2c4.lists.wireguard
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hey.


On Thu, 2025-06-05 at 12:27 +0200, Kajetan Staszkiewicz wrote:
> NetworkManager's Wireguard implemmentation already has a way of
> supporting it by using fwmarks. It's just that the fwmark operation
> is
> not automatically turned unless the tunnel is configured with
> AllowedIPs=::/0

AFAIU, even the AllowedIPs=::/0 case was only fixed[0] (in the sense
of: making it work out-of-the-box) recently, right?

But nevertheless, my main point was,... is it expected to be handled
*automatically* by WG clients?

It's clear that one can always make it somehow manually working, like
with the way from your comment or like how I did with adding a specific
route for the endpoint in [1] (though your approach is probably
cleaner).

And at least as of now, neither NM nor wg-quick seem to work out-of-
the-box with a split profile as described before.


> See my comment and a workaround which always forces the fwmark
> operation
> on
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/-/issues/1157#note_2426757

I would rather not have that imposed on "end-users"... not ruled out
they get it wrong and perhaps even compromise security.


Cheers,
Chris.


[0] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/-/merge_requests/2158
[1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/-/issues/1737
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.