From: Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: [RFC] WireGuard: next generation secure network tunnel Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 13:42:58 +0200 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: David Miller , Netdev , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, LKML To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f46.google.com ([209.85.218.46]:34945 "EHLO mail-oi0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751994AbcGALnc (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 07:43:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > WireGuard acts as a virtual interface, doing layer 3 IP tunneling, > addable with "ip link add dev wg0 type wireguard". You can set the > interface's local IP and routes using the usual ip-address and So every logical tunnel will allocate a new net device? Doesn't this scale badly? I have ipsec alike setups with many, many road warriors in mind. -- Thanks, //richard