Skip to content
Any plans to support Wireguard VPN?
Suggestions/comments/criticisms are welcome here
Just adding a "me too" onto this. Long time multi license Viscosity user with OpenVPN, but I would love to retain the Viscosity client functionality with wireguard as the transport. Paid upgrade or separate ViscosityWG Sparklabs product wouldn't be a problem.
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:57 am
At this point there is no reason not to support it and every reason to do so.
Wireguard's performance is far superior to OpenVPN.
Wireguard's performance is far superior to OpenVPN.
+1.
Some thoughts:
Love Viscosity. Love WireGuard.
But saying OpenVPN is dead is not accurate. There are things WireGuard does not currently do out of the box. Logging, MFA and SSO for example. You cannot have an LDAP or RADIUS Server with user accounts and then point a dozen WG servers to it and say "these users/groups can connect to this WireGuard instance".
OpenVPN 2.5.0 now also has the ChaCha20-POLY1305 data cipher meaning the performance can be similar to that of WireGuard on devices without AES-NI like some mobiles, raspberry pi etc.
The tradeoff is that OpenVPN is quite convoluted legacy stuff where WireGuard is lean and mean modern day tech. And the statelessness of WireGuard is epic on mobile devices. No more 1 -2 minutes of "ping-timeout, reconnect super tedious handshake with data leaking unless you have a kill switch" every time you step out of an elevator / switch from LTE to WiFi.
For straight-forward site-site tunnels and for any mobile clients I love me some WireGuard but enterprise hub and spoke setups, i.e. where Viscosity is probably used quite a lot, OpenVPN is going to be with us for a while yet. Just waiting for Viscosity to support OpenVPN 2.5.0 so I can test ChaCha20-POLY1305 performance. I think it won't make much difference on my Windows machines though. They have AES-NI. I think our bottleneck is on the OpenVPN server where it only uses a single thread. WireGuard shines there, too in terms of resource efficiency.
Some thoughts:
Love Viscosity. Love WireGuard.
But saying OpenVPN is dead is not accurate. There are things WireGuard does not currently do out of the box. Logging, MFA and SSO for example. You cannot have an LDAP or RADIUS Server with user accounts and then point a dozen WG servers to it and say "these users/groups can connect to this WireGuard instance".
OpenVPN 2.5.0 now also has the ChaCha20-POLY1305 data cipher meaning the performance can be similar to that of WireGuard on devices without AES-NI like some mobiles, raspberry pi etc.
The tradeoff is that OpenVPN is quite convoluted legacy stuff where WireGuard is lean and mean modern day tech. And the statelessness of WireGuard is epic on mobile devices. No more 1 -2 minutes of "ping-timeout, reconnect super tedious handshake with data leaking unless you have a kill switch" every time you step out of an elevator / switch from LTE to WiFi.
For straight-forward site-site tunnels and for any mobile clients I love me some WireGuard but enterprise hub and spoke setups, i.e. where Viscosity is probably used quite a lot, OpenVPN is going to be with us for a while yet. Just waiting for Viscosity to support OpenVPN 2.5.0 so I can test ChaCha20-POLY1305 performance. I think it won't make much difference on my Windows machines though. They have AES-NI. I think our bottleneck is on the OpenVPN server where it only uses a single thread. WireGuard shines there, too in terms of resource efficiency.
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:15 pm
please add wireguard, i use it all the time on windows with mullvad.
