colucci-web.it

Hi,

if i create an WireGuard Profile with only an IPv6 Address (empty IPv4 Address) i lose the ability to access IPv4 Servers.

A possible workaround is to enter a random IPv4 (not configured as a peer, ...) For example 10.0.0.1/32

After that i can connect to IPv4 only Servers again.

I don't think this is how it is supposed to work as it is not very intuitive.


Thanks

Tom

Hello,
this is normal behavior, because a host configured only with IPv6 address cannot reach a host configured only with IPv4 address and vice versa

Could it be that something has been adjusted with the latest version (1.00.71)? Now IPv4 only domains work, but directly entering IPv4s fails (e.g. https://1.1.1.1/)

https://test-ipv6.com says NAT64 detected?

If I configure the official Wireguard app with only an IPv6 ULA and a corresponding route ("identical" from my point of view to the Config in VPN Client Pro), access to both IPv6 and IPv4 sites on the Internet works. That would also be my assumption of what should happen.
Unfortunately, I can't tell you exactly where the problem is right now and I can only tell you my observations. I hope this helps anyway.

Nevermind, the situation is the same as before. I only tested over cellular network this time. Since my smartphone is set up for 464-XLAT there, that will have caused the weird situation.
Over wifi it is the same as before. I can only reach IPv6 destinations with the routes and addresses shown in the screenshot.
As long as there are no IPv4 routes, IPv4 should not be "blocked" in my opinion.
For me this is not really a problem. I will enter a random IPv4 and that's it, but I think that could be a bit confusing for others. I also don't find it "logical" why entering 10.99.21.78/32 should suddenly give access to IPv4 without creating routes or something like that.
So yeah, I can understand why, but I don't think that's what you'd expect intuitively.

Sorry, there was a misunderstanding.
Now I understand that you meant that IPv4 is also blocked outside the VPN.
The problem will be fixed in the next release.
Thanks for the tip

No worries

The problem should be solved in new version 1.00.72

Yes, the problem is indeed solved with 1.00.72. Thanks a lot!