perara
[WIP] use pywireguard instead of calling wg and wg-quick
Use wireguard C API directly (via pywireguard) instead of generating configuration files and calling wg and wg-quick.
It will also stop requiring to have wg-tools installed on host.
@perara do you think that this worth's the time or do you want to keep using the wg command with generated configuration files?
No this is excellent! I was looking for similar bindings during the initial writeup. Although its rather early in dev and maintained by 1 person only, its better than how we do it currently and i can imagine that it will be adopted by many others.
In terms of config files, i think it would be wise to have it compliant with regular wg config files so that its trivial to migrate from/to. But it should not be any dealbreaker in terms of using pywireguard
Just ping me if you follow this path eventually (if its ready, and ill test it out and hopefully merge it in )
Hello,
yah I will follow it, I just got busy with some personal stuff, maybe next week I think
Hey,
Yah sorry I got some personal stuff on the way and was unable to continue with this. Meanwhile, I will open a new issue against pywirguard since currently it isn't possible to set the peer endpoint
Excellent! I Will watch this and I'm also "out of office" until the new year, but aim to clock in quite a lot of work then as much have happened on the WG front in the recent year.
I think that it's better to keep using wg-quick while pywireguard doesn't have all the features (at least the ones that the C library supports). Another issue will be the post up/down commands, I don't think that the C library supports it, will pywireguard run them directly?
I will keep an eye on pywireguard to check when this features are available. I can also try to implement them, but my CPython skills are next to none so I prefer to leave it to the peeps that know it.
Another (off) topic, I thought about having different backends. For example, I personally use RouterOS and I would love to have wg-manager feeding tunnels to RouterOS via API. This would be also valid for other systems that have a API available for Wireguard tunnels. What do you think?