You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I wish to use custom WG configuration, instead of hard-coded values in the python, I read #5562 (review) and I understand the desire to not have lots of code to parse existing configs.
Proposal
Add additional options to the wireguard.conf file. The pub/priv keys are already stored here, and other variables could also be stored here too, such is IPs, listen ports for both instance/peer/dns and in particular, endpoint.
The file could easily be populated by default with the static config already there, which would provide customisation at no expense to those who do not wish to manually enter anything.
Alternatives
There is not really one that requires less effort, but the alternative would be to allow the use of standard wireguard config formats.
Additional context
In my case I have an LTE router at another location and I want to connect mitmproxy via my existing wireguard setup, which uses a FQDN as a means of conveying the current IP, due to having a dynamic one so that I can proxy the webUIs available there over the tunnel.
It would also be nice one day to reintroduce the multi-peer support so one instance of MITM can serve multiple remote locations or devices without having to share a common WG tunnel.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Problem Description
I wish to use custom WG configuration, instead of hard-coded values in the python, I read #5562 (review) and I understand the desire to not have lots of code to parse existing configs.
Proposal
Add additional options to the wireguard.conf file. The pub/priv keys are already stored here, and other variables could also be stored here too, such is IPs, listen ports for both instance/peer/dns and in particular, endpoint.
The file could easily be populated by default with the static config already there, which would provide customisation at no expense to those who do not wish to manually enter anything.
Alternatives
There is not really one that requires less effort, but the alternative would be to allow the use of standard wireguard config formats.
Additional context
In my case I have an LTE router at another location and I want to connect mitmproxy via my existing wireguard setup, which uses a FQDN as a means of conveying the current IP, due to having a dynamic one so that I can proxy the webUIs available there over the tunnel.
It would also be nice one day to reintroduce the multi-peer support so one instance of MITM can serve multiple remote locations or devices without having to share a common WG tunnel.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: