So, I wrote a new VPN (private repos for now: ugly code & no doc). Why? I needed something minimal, fast, over TCP, that doesn’t require any post-configuration to route all the traffic through a server. Existing solutions were way too complicated for the most common use case.
-
Show this thread
-
It’s currently called pmvpn, but suggestions for a better name before it gets opensourced would be more than welcome.
8 replies 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @asnip8
No. There’s a server, a client, the server NATs client’s packets, and that’s all it does and will do. One command-line to type on each side and you’re all set. Nothing else to configure, not much documentation to read. That’s what I wanted to solve. And it works over TCP port 443
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Wireguard wasn't the right tool?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Natanael_L @asnip8
GloryTun, Wireguard -> no TCP, I couldn’t use them in environments where only TCP/80 and TCP/443 work. OpenVPN configuration is incredibly complicated.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Could UDP/53 also work (in such environments)?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
UDP 53 is redirected to the router DNS cache. If I could use UDP I would have used GloryTun.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
QUIC is UDP.
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.