![]() Qrencode -t ansiutf8 < /etc/wireguard/mobile_nf I was setting up a relative with a Wireguard config, and figured I might as well use qrencode to do it since I have it installed on my local machine. Server you could also use the wg tool instead: $ sudo systemctl stop sudo systemctl start of having to modify the file for every client you want to add to the Transfer: 92.98 KiB received, 495.89 KiB sent Latest handshake: 5 minutes, 30 seconds ago ![]() Transfer: 57.58 KiB received, 113.32 KiB sent Latest handshake: 4 minutes, 16 seconds ago # for example if your home network is 192.168.1.0/24 # if you want to do split tunnel, add your allowed IPs On each client, define a /etc/wireguard/mobile_nf. PostDown = iptables -D FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT iptables -D FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o enp9s0 -j MASQUERADE PostUp = iptables -A FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o enp9s0 -j MASQUERADE ![]() So use whatever IP ranges and CIDR blocks that will work for your network. On the server, create a conf file - /etc/wireguard/wg0.conf (These are examples, Put the preshared key in the client config if you choose to use it. Public on the server and the private on the peer. Generate a second key pair, and do the opposite, put the Take the above private key, and place it in the server. One can also generate a preshared key to add an additional layer of symmetric-key cryptography to be mixed into the already existing public-key cryptography, for post-quantum resistance. $ wg genkey | tee privatekey | wg pubkey > publickeyĮxample privatekey - mNb7OIIXTdgW4khM7OFlzJ+UPs7lmcWHV7xjPgakMkQ=Įxample publickey - 0qRWfQ2ihXSgzUbmHXQ70xOxDd7sZlgjqGSPA9PFuHg= Generated on any device, as long as you keep the private key on the source and $ sudo add-apt-repository ppa:wireguard/wireguard There is also some architectures that combine P2P with Server-client.Install WireGuard via whatever package manager you use. I would consider P2P a good choice because the average internet connection is getting better and better, in the future P2P latency might not be a problem at all.Īlso much about P2P depends on the specific implementation. If the server has problems, everyone does.Costs you money to run the servers: definitely not suitable for a free game (unless you let the players set up a dedicated server, but that might be a security problem).A player's internet connection never affects another's game.Lower Latency: If the server has a solid connection the latency can be extremely low.Cheating can be avoided easily (compared to P2P).If implemented well, scales extremely well (if the work can be distributed across multiple servers). ![]() Easy to implement: It's as straightforward as it gets.Additionally, the ISP may prevent port forwarding, and it increases the barrier to entry. May require port forwarding: P2P over the Internet requires port-forwarding, and not everyone is technically-inclined enough to do that.Latency is usually much greater (although it can be better when joining an internet game with multiple people from a LAN network for example).A client's internet connection can influence the game for others too.It's very hard to prevent cheating in such a system, unless you designate an authoritative peer (which will hinder any benefits of scaling well from P2P).Hard to implement: much harder to create a solid P2P architecture, than a server-client.More Stable: It can never happen that the server is having problems and no-one can play (implementation dependent).Very good for data distribution: Suits games where user-created content is dynamically synced (e.g.Scales very well (up to a certain point when the average client just can't handle the bandwidth).No need for a central server: this makes it much cheaper, and more viable for low-budget indie games.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |