Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature Request] WireGuard Multihop from App #1487

Open
bradynpoulsen opened this issue Feb 13, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

[Feature Request] WireGuard Multihop from App #1487

bradynpoulsen opened this issue Feb 13, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@bradynpoulsen
Copy link

@bradynpoulsen bradynpoulsen commented Feb 13, 2020

I would like to be able to take advantage of the Mullvad WireGuard Multihop support from the desktop/mobile apps UI.

The functionality workflow that I have in mind is:

  1. Enable multihop
  2. Select an entry location (In most cases, I'm using the closest location)
  3. Select an exit location (Varies by need, but I usually try to select locations through the same data center providers)
  4. Connect

A couple of secondary nice features that would fulfill my most common locations:

  • Quickly swap exit locations using the existing "Switch location" UI
  • Auto-select entry location based on latency
  • Auto-select exit location based on lowest latency in the exit region I have selected
@faern

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@faern faern commented Feb 13, 2020

Adding WireGuard multihop to the app is for sure on the roadmap. I can't give any estimates for when, but it will eventually be there.

Do you know you can already basically mulithop with Shadowsocks + OpenVPN in the app? By using a bridge. Check out https://mullvad.net/en/help/how-use-bridge-mode/.

Quickly swap exit locations using the existing "Switch location" UI

That's likely how it will work, yes. Just like when using a bridge today.

Auto-select entry location based on latency
Auto-select exit location based on lowest latency in the exit region I have selected

We currently don't do anything based on latency in the app. We know a lot of other clients do, but our reason for avoiding it so far includes at least:

  1. We want the app to be relatively quiet and hard to fingerprint. After all, censorship circumvention and user security is our main goal. Sending out pings to a large set of servers now and then is not exactly quiet.
  2. Latency is not a very good measurement for speed or the quality of the tunnel said server will provide. Sure, it might work well for some situations, but there are definitely cases where it provides a very wrong metric.
@bradynpoulsen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@bradynpoulsen bradynpoulsen commented Feb 13, 2020

Adding WireGuard multihop to the app is for sure on the roadmap

I figured it was -- I just wanted to open an issue that I could subscribe to so I can get updates on its progress 😄

Latency is not a very good measurement for speed or the quality of the tunnel

Yeah, suggesting a latency-based check was me getting too technical. Primarily, because I travel a lot, it would be nice if it was using any server that was relatively close geographically.

I'm not too concerned about the latency itself as much as trying to enter the Mullvad servers ASAP (which is where latency came to mind) and then from there redirecting the traffic to my desired destination. The calculations wouldn't really need to be very accurate (withing ~100 miles) to give a decent location to attempt a connection to.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.