• Alex@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Because OpenVPN is fiddly to set up and modern Wireguard setups seem to scale well enough.

    • redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      4 days ago

      Not sure about that. I set up a wg vpn server on a system which then became unresponsive whenever wg was fully saturating the network. Turns out there is apparently no way to throttle or prioritize a wg server, the only way I could think of would be to dedicate a vm to solely the wg vpn and throttle that vm in its networking.
      I instead switched to openvpn which can simply be throttled via a line in its configuration.

      Besides that missing feature, openvpn also doesn’t require figuring out the right iptables commands to verbatim paste into its config as startup and shutdown commands. Setting it up was way easier than wg (though openvpn too wasn’t exactly user-friendly).

      WG to me seems too clunky and unfinished for more mainstream usage, though I am sure it wouldn’t be an issue for a large commercial user like mullvad that will have no issue with all that.

      • Illecors@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        Regarding link saturation - have you tried tc/wondershaper? https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/28198/how-to-limit-network-bandwidth#28203

        Iptables commands - that was needed at the very launch of wg, I’ve not had to deal with it for some time now.

        Personal/commercial use - I’m on a completely opposite side. It’s perfect for personal use, but its lack of dhcp support makes me question its capability in a commercial setting. Many providers offer it, so clearly that’s not an insurmountable task, but I’m still curious how they sort out their backend.

        • philpo@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yeah, to be honest, WG out of the box is really nice for tunneling and static IP road warriors. For larger deployments it’s a bit of a PIA without DHCP.

          Sadly.

          But things like Netbird make it a bit easier.

  • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    5 days ago

    Urgh, I don’t really have time to do this migration but guess I’m planning it in anyway.

    Past me was a lazy bum. But I’m confident that future me is all over this. Time for a nap.

    • Javi@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Damn you sir, you didn’t need to call me out with that last paragraph.

      No, I know it wasn’t my shoe, but look at how well it fits!

  • drath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    This post makes it look like there’s something serious ly wrong with openvpn, but it’s just them not wanting to deal with it and deprecating it.

    Oh well, guess Ill put a note not to use them. My country blocks VPN protocols and wg specifically, so for my usecase I need as many protocols supported as possible, preferrably mimicking other innocuous protocols.