Post #2741393
2026-03-15 08:54 UTC
Replies (1)
-
@hugo@social.treehouse.systems 2026-03-16 01:45
@arichtman@eigenmagic.net @uep@timeloop.cafe that sounds about right. tbh, this sounds like the GUIs or distribution-specific (opnsense, openwrt) abstractions are confusing things. Daniel has it above. Each node has: their own interface / listening address & private key configa list of peers Where each peer is configured with: an address to reach them on (Endpoint)their pubkeythe AllowedIPs that can be reached through that peer That requirement is the same in both directions. Router A has its own Interface / address / private key, and a peer for router B, which lists router B's endpoint address, pubkey, and the AllowedIPs to reach through router B. Router has its own Interface / address / private key, and a peer for router A, which lists router A's endpoint address, pubkey, and the AllowedIPs to reach through router A. If you also add site C, you would add a peer and endpoint + pubkey + allowedips entry for site C to both A and B's config, and then in site C's configuration add its interface / address / private key, and peer configs for routers A and B with their endpoint addresses, pubkeys, and the AllowedIPs to reach through each respective peer. Client-server abstractions here add more confusion than helpful, imho, for this type of setup. That can possibly be a helpful lens for a road warrior setup that's a more traditional client-server view, but for interconnecting sites through routers running wg in a site-to-site setup it just confuses things, imho.