The best way to deal with this IMHO in a multi platform way is adding weight or metric to the specific routes, allowing them to be manually prioritized.
Cheers, Domi > 22.04.2023 dátummal, 13:25 időpontban Omkhar Arasaratnam <[email protected]> > írta: > > Rather than using the route setup logic in wg-quick, you could > manually set the default gateway for (1) and add a more specific route > for (2) in your route table. iirc (in Linux anyway...) the more > specific route would take higher precedence. > > --oa > > > --oa > > >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 7:18 AM Johnny Utahh >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> More discussion here: >> >> https://www.reddit.com/r/WireGuard/comments/12oimvq/how_to_optimize_allowedips_overlapping_routes/ >> >> Clearly this is FAQ-ish kind of thing. It was a little hard for me to >> easily find a reference for this kind of stuff. I realize the WireGuard >> project may not consider it to be their responsibility to address such >> things. >> >> ~J >> >>> On 2023-04-16 10:06 AM, Johnny Utahh wrote: >>> 1. wg0.conf: AllowedIPs = 0.0.0.0/0, ::0/0 --> higher-latency network >>> 2. wg1.conf: AllowedIPs = 192.168.7.0/24 --> much-lower-latency network >>> >>> When enabling both of the devices/.conf's (listed as 1. and 2. above) >>> concurrently, the #2 route travels over #1 (all starting up via >>> 'wg-quick'). In this scenario I'd prefer #2 routing "bypasses" #1 and >>> retain its (#2's) lower-latency path/network. Can this be done, somehow? >>> >>> I deduce the "route" for #2 changes when concurrently-enabling #1 >>> because the #2-ping-latency immediately and dramatically increases to >>> match #1-network's latency (and immediately reverts to #2's lower >>> latency when #1 is disabled). This hurts my #2 network, badly. >>> >>> I'm running/testing the above on macOS v12.6.3 build 21G419, >>> wireguard-go v0.0.20230223. If not on macOS, might this be feasible on >>> Fedora or Ubuntu? >>> >>> I realize this might be a FAQ. I could not find any docs/resources to >>> help after a brief search, so I'm posting here. >>> >>> [I'm not a networking expert, so I may be butchering various >>> terminology, concepts. I apologize in advance for my ignorance.] >>> >>> ~J
