search

qdm12 / gluetun

VPN client in a thin Docker container for multiple VPN providers, written in Go, and using OpenVPN or Wireguard, DNS over TLS, with a few proxy servers built-in.
https://hub.docker.com/r/qmcgaw/gluetun
MIT License
6.71k stars 331 forks source link

Feature request: support for shadowsocks #2191

Closed JulyMin closed 2 months ago

JulyMin commented 3 months ago

What's the feature 🧐

Just wanted to drop a quick note about the mention of "Built-in Shadowsocks Proxy" in the README. It seems like it might cause some confusion because it sounds like we've got a Shadowsocks client, as gluetun is a vpn client.

Maybe we could edit README to make it clearer? Or, here's a better idea: could we add support for Shadowsocks client functionality? That might be super useful!

Extra information and references

No response

github-actions[bot] commented 3 months ago

@qdm12 is more or less the only maintainer of this project and works on it in his free time. Please:

cantidonandaba commented 3 months ago

Just wanted to drop a quick note about the mention of "Built-in Shadowsocks Proxy" in the README. It seems like it might cause some confusion because it sounds like we've got a Shadowsocks client, as gluetun is a vpn client.

Yes, it is a VPN client, but that doesn't stop it from being a Shadowsocks proxy server as well. If you connect to the running container via Shadowsocks, all of that client's traffic can get routed to the gluetun-container then through the connected VPN and then finally to its target. To me that was pretty clear in the README, since that was a proposed way to test the connectivity of the container.

JulyMin commented 3 months ago

Just wanted to drop a quick note about the mention of "Built-in Shadowsocks Proxy" in the README. It seems like it might cause some confusion because it sounds like we've got a Shadowsocks client, as gluetun is a vpn client.

Yes, it is a VPN client, but that doesn't stop it from being a Shadowsocks proxy server as well. If you connect to the running container via Shadowsocks, all of that client's traffic can get routed to the gluetun-container then through the connected VPN and then finally to its target. To me that was pretty clear in the README, since that was a proposed way to test the connectivity of the container.

Thanks for explaining. You are right that the Shadowsocks server functionality is useful. However, I just hope the author could clarify in the README that it supports a Shadowsocks 'server' instead. Here's the scenario: When looking for a VPN client that supports a Shadowsocks 'client' on some Docker repository platform, gluetun might appear as the first search result. Meanwhile, users looking for a built-in Shadowsocks server are another major group, but gluetun as a search result could be overwhelmed by other Shadowsocks client results (since there are more client than server projects).

qdm12 commented 2 months ago

@JulyMin indeed, readme updated in ee8802ee86a01829dbf070d8c38bb127f678356b 😉 Thanks for the suggestion.

could we add support for Shadowsocks client functionality? That might be super useful!

I thought there was an existing issue for this, but I cannot find it, so until then let's keep this issue opened. I renamed the title a bit.

qdm12 commented 2 months ago

Actually, barely any vpn providers support shadowsocks so let's just close this for now. All support openvpn, some support Wireguard, but shadowsocks support is rare.

github-actions[bot] commented 2 months ago

Closed issues are NOT monitored, so commenting here is likely to be not seen. If you think this is still unresolved and have more information to bring, please create another issue.

This is an automated comment setup because @qdm12 is the sole maintainer of this project which became too popular to monitor issues closed.