I believe it is the case one should care the most. It's like this concept of election...
Because this multiuser case. Imagine you're an administrator and provide users with VPN configuration. And imagine your boss receiving QR code and some additional instructions to enter additional lines... - you will lose your job quite fast with that level of user support.
And again. It is the most common use case.
You haven't reviewed the other thread whatsoever - have you?
There's extensive discussion on issues regarding that use case.
Because it destroys the whole idea of QR code simplicity. Again, IPSec was (and is fine) for me, but for some unknown (?) reason it is unpopular. Guess why? I believe it is in those additional lines of letters and digits one has to enter.
Still failed to provide that phone app you referred to. Make screenshot of it, I demand. This was the main use case according to you. Then we will talk about that not so long (compared with this one) thread.
To be clear, you are ware that OpenWrt sides doesn't require an DNS server, correct?
So there's no DNS server to extrapolate in some cases.
Nor does a mobile device - it seems you keep insisting the config requires one. Fair enough in the instance of a use case not covered - but that's just not true.
It seems like you wanna make a Feature Request for the QR Code to make client configs in a OpenWrt WG Server scenario (i.e. the exact use case the developers said isn't employed here).
I don't get the joke. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wireguard.android&hl=en_US&gl=US
Please stop going in logic circles without explaining the purpose.
Again, please don't be rude - let's keep the discussion civil.
Maybe you should explain what "required" information you keep ranting about.
I believ there is a way to check it. And (according to most discussions here) openwrt's goal is to provide its users with Internet access and DNS is one of Internet's key components. Dude, as I told you, there is a way to check those case you are talking to with one line request.
It is not a phone app screenshot. Do I need to remind you your own words?
It seems you're just confused or something.
Best wishes on your Feature Request.
Good day.
LMFAO
So scan it... Did you manage to establish connection after that?
Who's rude? Did I call you a name?
Please stop going in circles:
I don't get your point - can you please explain why you're insisting I'mnot showing you the official Wireguard app?
But it doesn't work!
I now understand the incorrect impressions and ideas you have about Wireguard and Layer 3 tunnels. I understand what you're saying - albeit it seems nonsensical - save a new Feature Request for a new use case.
OK, have a good day.
But do you understand that enpoint IP is still encoded inside of that QR? Even after your image manipulation...
That was kinda epic ending. Kinda shows the whole level of expertise. Have a good day, dude!
Excuse me!
Yes, the endpoint IP is supposed to be in the config - you lost me. You just accused me of manipulating the image, when the thread was solving an issue wit the app. That's how you prove the QR is legit.
Additionally it was an RFC1918 IP. Your comment makes no sense.
Your image manipulation make no sense - that would concern me more on your place.