Support will be removed on both client and server side.
The process of removing OpenVPN from our app starts today and may be completed much earlier.
any good wireguard documenation? only found few random company blog, some stackoverflow and reddit.
TL;DR They are moving to wireguard only.
I’m ok with that.
Except the 5 device limit. With OVPN it means 5 connected devices, with WG it means 5 registered public keys.
Say you use the official Mullvad app and also setup some 3rd party WG client on your phone. That’s now taking up 2 devices. Or perhaps you do have 6 devices, but you never have more than 2 of them running at once. With WG, that’s still 6 devices regardless of them being connected or not, while with OVPN it will indeed be just 2 devices.
This is a great point, if they’re gonna make this change, they should allow unlimited keys (or at least more than 5) and just limit the number of simultaneous devices on wireguard too. If that’s feasable
Can you not use the same keys for multiple devices like you’d normally be able to?
That’s a pity.
Is there something preventing you from having the same key ready for use on more than one device? So that two devices that are never connected at the same time can take turns using the same key?
One of my devices uses three keys because out of the two local servers I have, they seem to go down every other month, so I need a failover.
I already commented on this, but do they actually block you from setting up multiple devices with the same key?
I’ve had my own server node for a while, there’s nothing stopping me from using the same key and config on multiple client devices, as long as I don’t connect them at the same time.
I’m not limited to five keys, obviously, but the keys aren’t device specific. I could set up just one on the server, and then use it everywhere.
Does Mullwad stop this in some way?
Wireguard is more elegant and performant, and has a smaller attack surface. OpenVPN, meanwhile, is a legacy protocol, and retiring it should be a good thing.
Not great if you use the transmission-openvpn docker container. Guess I need to come up with a new plan.
Wasn’t aware of this. I’ll check it out! One annoying thing with Mullvad though is the wireguard keys count against your device limit and I already have problems with that. Using OpenVPN didn’t count against the limit. The again I’m also considering switch to Surfshark since its cheaper.
sometimes people keep a container for the vpn/proxy, and set up the other one to use the network of the other container
If wire guard is just bettr then I don’t see any reason to suport OpenVPN anyway.
i can’t get wire guard to work on my home network so it is not better for me
edit: to be fair my internet connection is being tapped and recorded by law enforcement so i am assuming that is the problem.
Is that with any vpn provider? or hosting your own? And that is kind of a shame I guess you just won’t be able to use Mullvad vpn, good thing there are heaps of other options.
That’s kind of weird, because the reason why I never bothered with (selfhosted) VPNs before Wireguard was because it was the first one that just worked. Granted, due to its nature, you don’t get a lot of feedback when things don’t work, but it’s so simple in principle that there’s not a lot that can go wrong. For external VPNs like this, it should just be: Load config, double-check, done.
Why tho?
(linked in the above article) https://mullvad.net/en/blog/wireguard-future
Well thats the day I stop using them wtf
Why? Wireguard i a great protocol and Mullvad best in class with regards to privacy.
