phantun
go-shadowsocks2
| phantun | go-shadowsocks2 | |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 3 | |
| 2,348 | 4,722 | |
| 2.5% | 0.0% | |
| 7.1 | 2.5 | |
| 7 months ago | over 1 year ago | |
| Rust | Go | |
| Apache License 2.0 | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
phantun
-
Why TCP over TCP Is a Bad Idea
> The retransmit-in-retransmit behavior is precisely the issue.
But you're concerned about an issue I do not have. In practice retransmits are rare between my endpoints, and if they did occur poor performance is acceptable for some period of time. I just need it to me fast most of the time. To reiterate: I do not care about what happens in non-optimal conditions.
> it looks like I've just accidentally described phantun (and maybe other solutions): https://github.com/dndx/phantun
I'll definitely look into that. They specifically mention being more performant than udp2raw, so that's nice.
-
Wireguard is banned in China, anything I could do about it?
try Phantun plz, udp in tcp tunnel.
-
Wireguard handshake in IRAN - HELP
turn UDP into TCP https://github.com/dndx/phantun It does not modify the UDP payload, so the usual WG signatures such as 01 00 00 00 header, all zeros mac2 field, fixed length handshake message etc.al. are still there.
-
Share with Reddit: Phantun - Run WireGuard over obfuscated TCP connections without UDP over TCP penalty (alternative to udp2raw)
The project is called Phantun. Source code, binary releases and detailed README are available at: https://github.com/dndx/phantun
go-shadowsocks2
-
Why TCP over TCP Is a Bad Idea
Nope, shadowsocks is just plain TCP-in-TCP (not TCP-over-TCP) proxy. If you cannot have performant routing between clouds due to UDP QoS, then the only sensible solution would be to setup proxy nodes on both sides and transparently redirect traffic through the proxy.
(I'm author of go-shadowsocks2 https://github.com/shadowsocks/go-shadowsocks2)
-
WireGuardNT, a high-performance WireGuard implementation for the Windows kernel
To be honest WireGuard over Shadowsocks is neither common nor recommended, coz essentially it's TCP-over-TCP which will wreak havoc on TCP congestion control.
Unless you mean WireGuard over Shadowsocks UDP transport, but that is even less common.
(Disclaimer: I wrote the official Go port of Shadowsocks https://github.com/shadowsocks/go-shadowsocks2)
-
Unliminted is amazing. I use about 30GB a month now, which is what I was using back on my old Verizon Unlimited plan.
You want to encrypt your web traffic securely? Go to digitalocean.com and startup a VPN, and setup ShadowSocks.
What are some alternatives?
tunnel-wireguard-udp2raw - Tunnel WireGuard UDP traffic over TCP using udp2raw
v2rayA - A web GUI client of Project V which supports VMess, VLESS, SS, SSR, Trojan, Tuic and Juicity protocols. 🚀
ipt_xor - iptables xor module
tun2socks - tun2socks - powered by gVisor TCP/IP stack
udp2raw - A Tunnel which Turns UDP Traffic into Encrypted UDP/FakeTCP/ICMP Traffic by using Raw Socket,helps you Bypass UDP FireWalls(or Unstable UDP Environment)
gost - GO Simple Tunnel - a simple tunnel written in golang