Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 17:51:37 +0300 From: Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight@gmail.com> To: Daniel Lovasko <daniel.lovasko@gmail.com> Cc: "Peter 'PMc' Much" <pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: wg ifconfing control Message-ID: <20250205175137.33ffd134@nuclight.lan> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BcSnN0RQTrg0agTu-40zEs75GtGZSvapU=bKK8_AjCY=Q6zXg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA%2BcSnN1UYpecBV145FAkdySM9otr%2BOPTfaWL6PUfj14VEinGVQ@mail.gmail.com> <202501230824.50N8O8hx008288@critter.freebsd.dk> <20250123090603.GC1358@memo2.memo.frmug.org> <slrnvq1r17.1dil.pmc@disp.intra.daemon.contact> <CA%2BcSnN0RQTrg0agTu-40zEs75GtGZSvapU=bKK8_AjCY=Q6zXg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That's why Linux have ip(8) utiity, similar to our pkg(8) subcommands or GE= OM classes. This could have been implemented with plugins, and - like pkg(8) -= it doesn't need to live in one big manpage (hard to read) - SEE ALSO to individual pages is enough. On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:32:05 +0100 Daniel Lovasko <daniel.lovasko@gmail.com> wrote: > The same ioctls with wg_data_io structures could be issued from ifconfig, > just as they are from the wg utility in base. I am not arguing that wg > utility should be removed, or that the kernel access surface to WireGuard > expanded. That being said, I think a similar wg utility can be obtained > from ports (wireguard-tools). >=20 > The patch linked by Baptiste is pretty much what I was looking for. Whilst > Baptiste's setup does indeed work, what I am looking for is a similar > interface to how I configure other ifconfig _xyN interfaces in > /etc/rc.conf. Also, perhaps expanding the scope of my ask: having the > commands in ifconfig aids discoverability since the commands can be > described in the manual page of ifconfig, similar to how it is done for > other protocols. >=20 > As for the meta-debate on ifconfig itself, my goal is to *configure a > network interface* (which wg presents itself as), so ifconfig sounds to me > like the right place. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if you want to > select the MTU of a WireGuard interface, you would still use ifconfig to = do > that. Having to use a single tool for all my configuration needs for wg > would be greatly appreciated, instead of relying on wg in the base, > wg-quick from wireguard-tools package to get /etc/rc.conf entries instead > of the ifconfig ones already in base, and ifconfig for particular generic > properties, without having a single non-Linux manual page dedicated to the > WireGuard subject in base. Whether the ifconfig utility does not live up = to > code quality standards, or has active bugs, is a different debate > altogether. >=20 > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 5:40=E2=80=AFPM Peter 'PMc' Much <pmc@citylink.din= oex.sub.org> > wrote: >=20 > > On 2025-01-23, Bertrand Petit <freebsd-hackers@phoe.frmug.org> wrote: = =20 > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 08:24:08AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: =20 > > >> > > >> Isn't that program already horrible and complex enough, in terms > > >> of source code, manual page and command line options ? =20 > > > > Thanks for speaking it out. > > I already moved all my bridges and guests and virtuals to netgraph, > > where I can find them again. It's much nicer to have a separate > > plane of existance where one can put things together independent > > from the ifconfig moloch. > > =20 > > > And buggy, see [1]. Reported Oct. 2021 and still present. =20 > > > > Ups, is that a bug? > > I got used to the scans sometimes either returning nothing or not > > returning at all. The link itself now functioning, I thought this > > an acceptable tradeoff. > > > > cheerio, > > PMc > > > > =20 --=20 WBR, @nuclight
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20250205175137.33ffd134>