I have multiple locations that are all connected via WG.
Two locations are considered by me to both be central locations: 212 and 355 (because they provide services to the other locations).
I have WG on my iphone and laptop for mobile/remote operation.
I can establish a WG connection from my iphone to 212 and see all IP devices on the the 212 LAN (which uses an RB5009).
The relevant FW rules in effect are:
/ip firewall filter
add action=accept chain=input comment="Allow incoming WG connections" dst-port=51820 protocol=udp
add action=accept chain=forward comment="Allow WG to subnet" dst-address=192.168.2.0/24 in-interface=212-Wireguard
add action=accept chain=forward comment="Allow all traffic out WG iface" out-interface=212-Wireguard
add action=accept chain=forward comment="Allows cross peer subnet traffic" in-interface=212-Wireguard out-interface=212-Wireguard
add action=accept chain=forward comment="Allow LAN to WAN" disabled=yes in-interface-list=LAN log=yes out-interface-list=WAN
add action=accept chain=forward comment="allow port forwarding" connection-nat-state=dstnat disabled=yes
add action=drop chain=forward comment="defconf: drop all from WAN not DSTNATed" connection-nat-state=!dstnat connection-state=new in-interface-list=WAN
355 and 212 are connected via WG and can see everything on each other's IP network.
However, I cannot from the WG-connected iPhone see any devices at location 355 which has a 192.168.0.0/24 LAN address.
Here is my guess:
If I remove the dst-address=192.168.2.0/24 from the 2nd filter, I might be able to see everything everywhere (including 192.168.0.0/24).
But, even if that is true, it might be smarter to keep that dst-address in place and create an except to that limit for specific incoming WG connections such as from my iPhone and Laptop.
Does this make sense?
Thanks.