Good to see WireGuard getting some coverage. I‘ve been embracing it from the very beginning for small scale Kubernetes clusters running on virtually any cloud provider lacking isolated private networking[1]. It‘s been running stable in different environments for more than a year; set up and forget. Unlike similar software it‘s also dead simple to configure.<p>Apparently, Linus wants it in the Kernel[2].<p>[1] <a href="https://github.com/hobby-kube/guide/blob/master/README.md" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/hobby-kube/guide/blob/master/README.md</a>
[2] <a href="https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/13/752" rel="nofollow">https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/13/752</a>
can wireguard work over tcp?
many captive portals i encounter daily block most ports and almost always allow only tcp. so i set up openvpn on port 443 over tcp, which got through everything so far.
Is WireGuard working as an IPv4 tunnel or can it transport arbitrary packets, like ipv6, becoming a tap interface?<p>Does it work as a link between two devices, or one-to-many? Does it support peer-to-peer connections within the group?
I use one of the many non-OpenVPN "VPN" alternatives. The one I chose has fewer lines/words/characters of code than Wireguard.<p>It does not require SSL/TLS, it can use Curve25519 and it is faster than OpenVPN.<p>It is a userland daemon (using /dev/tap), so it may be slower than Wireguard.<p>However I think it is more portable than WireGuard. (That is an important feature to me.)<p>How portable is WireGuard to BSD, Minix, Plan9, etc?