4 ms·
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.
by riobard 5y ago
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 https://github.com/shadowsocks/go-shadowsocks2)
- no_time 5y agoThank you for your work :D Sometimes a bad solution is better than no solution at all.
- riobard 5y agoActually I'd rather WireGuard adopt some obfuscation mechanisms, but as Jason stated it's a non-goal and the focus is to get WireGuard into mainstream OS kernels. So the only hope is to provide some obfuscation transport underneath. Tunneling WG over SS would be inefficient for obvious reasons. Maybe there should be a more lightweight solution.