Subject: Re: organization of wireguard linux kernel repos moving forward

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 17:36:07 +0100

David Ahern <[email-masked]> writes:

> On 12/9/19 5:49 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> I'd definitely be interested in this. Back in 2015, that was the plan.
>> Then it took a long time to get to where we are now, and since then
>> wg(8) has really evolved into its own useful thing. The easiest thing
>> would be to move wg(8) wholesale into iproute2 like you suggested;
>> that'd allow people to continue using their infrastructure and whatnot
>> they've used for a long time now. A more nuanced approach would be
>> coming up with a _parallel_ iproute2 tool with mostly the same syntax
>> as wg(8) but as a subcommand of ip(8). Originally the latter appealed
>> to me, but at this point maybe the former is better after all. I
>> suppose something to consider is that wg(8) is actually a
>> cross-platform tool now, with a unified syntax across a whole bunch of
>> operating systems. But it's also just boring C.
>
> If wg is to move into iproute2, it needs to align with the other
> commands and leverage the generic facilities where possible. ie., any
> functionality that overlaps with existing iproute2 code to be converted
> to use iproute2 code.

Thought that might be the case :)

That means a re-implementation, then. In which case the question becomes
whether it's better to do it as an 'ip' subcommand (or even just new
parameters to 'ip link'), or a new top-level utility striving for
compatibility with 'wg'. But that's mostly a UI issue...

-Toke