Code committed.

Implemented for the next 1.4.1
@a.apostoliuk recheck please and close if works as expected

Implemented in T6045

Dear Apachez
I observed a big load and time spent in 4 unionfs procs.
So probably you're point in hte right direction

I would insist only not adding endpoint, let peer be ready if they have configured with hostname endpoint.

If it does not block commit that's fine for me

Wouldnt be surprised if it turns out to be the same root cause as this is related to:

"blackhole" is a common term in regards of dropping traffic.

Here is how to get the latest-handshakes in seconds:

You are right with the naming we should consider this.
Regarding differentiation between network and address lists:
The current sources are returning mixed lists containing addresses and prefixes so I would not consider having both.

In T4930#208881, @c-po wrote:

@runar @sskaje

In general I like the idea and it's a very useful addition. Given the current implementation and design of wireguard to be easy, lightweight and not messed with 1000 of config options the design choice is to move everything requiring brain out of the WG core code.

In general I like the idea and it's a very useful addition. Given the current implementation and design of wireguard to be easy, lightweight and not messed with 1000 of config options the design choice is to move everything requiring brain out of the WG core code.

In T4930#182050, @Fr0stedD0nut wrote:

Does anyone have any thoughts on the best place to start adding this functionality / design ideas for this feature?

@c-po I'm curious, does using a hub like you suggest mean all data gets proxied through the hub, or is the hub enough to facilitate the connections and then the clients talk directly to each other?

There is current work that will be replacing the legacy show command, removing this bottleneck; related tasks will link here to keep track of progress.

In addiction we experiment problem even with api and graphql