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