mhm, I wanted to try @WireGuardVPN but it seems to lack two killer features: I cannot bind it to a certain IP and no TCP support. Do I miss something?
-
-
Replying to @wlet @WireGuardVPN
Why do you want that? (but TCP support seems to be experimentally available)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Triebholz @WireGuardVPN
Binding on a certain interference: just using one IP on a system with multiple interfaces TCP: Running the service on 443/TCP works through transparent proxies and in most crappy configured hotel WiFi
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wlet @WireGuardVPN
But what is the problem if it binds on all IPs? For multiple instances, just use different ports. For the HTTPS-faking usecase, OpenVPN is still the better choice, I guess. (Or try wireguard over iodine :-))
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Triebholz @WireGuardVPN
That doesn't work if on one ip the port (443) is already bound. Yes, one can work around this with ip tables etc. but that's a bit hack. Yes I think I'll go back to ovpn.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp -m multiport --dports 53,80,123,443,500,10000 -j REDIRECT --to-port 51820
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.