Wrongness list:
I doubt this is possible
Actually this is not a very wrongness, but you don't have to say like that about what you don't know. Don't doubt. It can be simply done by manual config, as my example above.
it's simply not how VPN works.
You said "simply not" without any exception, but now saying "about the use case"? That's simply not how humans communicate. Do you know what exactly the concept of VPN and how it works technically?
There are always servers and clients.
Always? Oh no. Always means always. You excluded any exceptions at the first. But again, now saying "use case"? Seriously?
The main issue is that the endpoint is mostly dynamic because normal people don't have static IPs.
Do you think it wasn't your wrongness? Why are you saying about static/dynamic even I clearly said that dynamic addresses are fine? What the hell is the problem with you? Why you distorting the truth by saying "not about wrongness"?
You had to read my post first. I'm really curious whether you didn't read my post, or whether you read but couldn't understand.
People use VPN providers or road warrior - but side to side is not a usecase that is needed often.
Even though you said it's your personal thought, but you're speaking as if it were an established fact. That's the point that pointed as being narrow-minded. You may consider that most people use like that, but saying like that based on your limited experience might be inappropriate.
So yeah, WireGuard does not rely on a strict server-client model.
Wrong. You said "not rely on a strict server-client model" but it's distorting the truth. The truth is, not just "strict" but not at all a server-client model. It's literally peer-to-peer by design. Even a road-warrior setup, technically it's different from "a strict server-client model" and also "a strict peer-to-peer model". This is an example of technically proper usage of "strict".
https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf
But at the end the topology is server-client
...only in the use cases you usually imagine. Saying like that is inappropriate.
And how to handle CGNAT then?
Why you asking like this rather than admit? At the first, I said "All each peer needs is a single UDP port open on a public IP address". Did you needed to ask because you can't understand what it means? If not, don't say that off-topic nonsense. Since a public IP address was prerequisite, asking that could be interpreted as an attempt to start and keep a meaningless arguments.
I read many posts & topics here and would say that it's a fact that side-to-side VPN isn't pretty common
So what? What are you expecting from saying that? That seems so awesome for you...?
If it's not common in this forum, are you allowed to just spit out opinions that it doesn't needed it? So narrow-minded.
You don't understand that most people using site-to-site usually don't need any support. Even if someone posting bug report or feature request, experts don't need to explain all the environment and configs in detail. Can't you do some sort of think that what kind of people would post on this forum? Again, I can't believe you believe like that.
it's a fact that side-to-side VPN isn't pretty common
In this forum? Yes maybe. But in fact? You can't say so sure like that.
If that's the truth, why do you think GL.iNet created automatic site-to-site feature in GoodCloud, even it's "not pretty common" and therefore would be barely used? You don't have any idea how network equipment vendors do business.
You keep saying "side-to-side"... I'm pretty sure that you don't know what exactly the site-to-site VPN is.
Mostly the people will use a road warrior design
So what? Regardless of whether that's true or not, do you believe that you have some privilege to reject minorities by so-called opinion?
The "not server, not client" concept isn't new, either
So what? Who said that's so new? Why you keep saying off-topic?
But without a S2S VPN, it simply isn't useful.
I can't believe that you with this level of thinking can be so confident and so sure. You don't know how WireGuard is used in the industry at all. This is pretty surprising experience.
can't you just add the necessary parameters to your config manually?
This is a ridiculously inappropriate to say to a "feature request". If so, then any feature requests are unnecessary since anything is possible with root privilege.
Moreover, you said "I doubt this is possible" at the first, but now saying "can't you just add the necessary parameters to your config manually"? Why are you harassing me like this? You keep changing your words and don't admit anything. Stop spouting sophistry to cover your ignorance.
If you really think you weren't wrong, then I have nothing to say anymore.
And I really wonder why you keep pay attention to this topic. Please stop it and don't do like this ever.