Pros of kcptun

• Implements the KCP protocol, which can improve network performance in high-latency or lossy environments
• Offers more customizable network parameters for fine-tuning performance
• Supports multiple encryption methods for data protection

Cons of kcptun

• Generally higher CPU and bandwidth usage compared to WireGuard
• More complex setup and configuration process
• Less widespread adoption and ecosystem support

Code Comparison

kcptun (client configuration):

kcpconn, err := kcp.DialWithOptions("localhost:12345", nil, 10, 3)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}
defer kcpconn.Close()

WireGuard-go (client configuration):

device := device.NewDevice(tun, conn.NewDefaultBind(), logger)
err = device.IpcSet(uapi.Config{
    PrivateKey: privateKey,
    Peers: []uapi.PeerConfig{{
        PublicKey:  publicKey,
        AllowedIPs: []net.IPNet{allowedIP},
    }},
})

Both projects aim to provide secure and efficient network tunneling solutions, but they differ in their underlying protocols and implementation approaches. kcptun focuses on optimizing performance in challenging network conditions, while WireGuard-go prioritizes simplicity, security, and efficiency in typical network environments.

Pros of shadowsocks-rust

• Written in Rust, offering better memory safety and performance
• Supports multiple ciphers and protocols, providing more flexibility
• Active development with frequent updates and improvements

Cons of shadowsocks-rust

• Less widespread adoption compared to WireGuard
• May require more configuration and setup for advanced features
• Potentially more complex codebase due to additional features

Code Comparison

shadowsocks-rust:

let server = ShadowsocksServer::new(config)?;
server.run().await?;

wireguard-go:

device := device.NewDevice(tun, conn, logger)
device.Up()

Both projects use concise code for initializing and running their respective services. shadowsocks-rust leverages Rust's async/await syntax, while wireguard-go uses Go's goroutines for concurrency. The wireguard-go code appears slightly more straightforward, reflecting its focus on simplicity and ease of use.

While both projects aim to provide secure communication, they differ in their approach and feature set. shadowsocks-rust offers more flexibility and customization options, while wireguard-go prioritizes simplicity and performance. The choice between them depends on specific use cases and requirements.

Pros of v2ray-core

• More versatile with support for multiple protocols and transport layers
• Advanced features like traffic obfuscation and routing capabilities
• Active development with frequent updates and improvements

Cons of v2ray-core

• More complex configuration and setup compared to wireguard-go
• Potentially higher resource usage due to additional features
• Steeper learning curve for new users

Code Comparison

v2ray-core (Go):

type Server struct {
    access     sync.Mutex
    sessions   map[string]*session
    count      uint32
    config     *Config
    dispatcher routing.Dispatcher
}

wireguard-go (Go):

type Device struct {
    isUp     AtomicBool
    isClosed AtomicBool
    log      *Logger
    net      *netstack
    peers    map[key.PublicKey]*Peer
}

Both projects use Go and implement network-related functionality, but v2ray-core's structure suggests a more complex system with routing and multiple sessions, while wireguard-go focuses on device and peer management typical of VPN implementations.

Pros of Xray-core

• More versatile with support for multiple protocols (VLESS, VMess, Trojan, etc.)
• Advanced traffic obfuscation techniques for better censorship resistance
• Modular architecture allowing for easier extension and customization

Cons of Xray-core

• More complex configuration and setup compared to WireGuard's simplicity
• Potentially higher resource usage due to additional features and protocols
• Less focus on pure VPN functionality, as it's designed for broader proxy use cases

Code Comparison

WireGuard-go (simple configuration):

config := wgtypes.Config{
    PrivateKey: privateKey,
    ListenPort: 51820,
    Peers: []wgtypes.PeerConfig{
        {
            PublicKey:  peerPublicKey,
            AllowedIPs: []net.IPNet{allowedIP},
        },
    },
}

Xray-core (more complex configuration):

{
  "inbounds": [{
    "port": 10086,
    "protocol": "vmess",
    "settings": {
      "clients": [{ "id": "b831381d-6324-4d53-ad4f-8cda48b30811" }]
    }
  }],
  "outbounds": [{ "protocol": "freedom" }]
}

Pros of OpenVPN

• Mature and widely adopted, with extensive documentation and community support
• Highly configurable, offering flexibility for various network setups
• Compatible with a wide range of devices and operating systems

Cons of OpenVPN

• Slower performance due to its complex protocol and encryption overhead
• More challenging to set up and maintain compared to WireGuard
• Larger codebase, potentially leading to more security vulnerabilities

Code Comparison

OpenVPN (C):

static void
do_init_crypto_tls(struct context *c, const unsigned int flags)
{
    if (c->options.tls_server)
    {
        tls_ctx_server_new(c->tls_multi);
        tls_ctx_load_dh_params(c->tls_multi, c->options.dh_file,
                               c->options.dh_file_inline);
    }
    else
    {
        tls_ctx_client_new(c->tls_multi);
    }
}

WireGuard-go (Go):

func (device *Device) Up() error {
    device.state.Lock()
    defer device.state.Unlock()

    if device.state.up {
        return nil
    }

    device.state.up = true
    return device.BindUpdate()
}

The code snippets demonstrate the difference in complexity and language choice between the two projects. OpenVPN's C code shows more intricate setup for TLS, while WireGuard-go's Go code presents a simpler device activation process.

Pros of n2n

• Supports peer-to-peer connections without a central server
• Offers more flexibility in network topology (mesh, star, etc.)
• Includes built-in NAT traversal capabilities

Cons of n2n

• Generally considered less secure than WireGuard
• Can be more complex to set up and configure
• May have higher latency due to its peer-to-peer nature

Code Comparison

n2n (C):

int edge_init(n2n_edge_t *eee) {
    memset(eee, 0, sizeof(n2n_edge_t));
    eee->start_time = time(NULL);
    eee->last_sup = 0;
    eee->last_reg_req = 0;
    eee->sn_wait = 10;
    eee->last_ack = 0;
    return 0;
}

wireguard-go (Go):

func (device *Device) Init() {
    device.state.starting.Add(1)
    device.queue.init()
    device.peers.init()
    device.routineDone.Add(deviceRoutineCount)
    device.log.Verbosef("Device initialized")
}

Both projects initialize their respective network devices, but n2n focuses on edge node setup, while WireGuard initializes device state, queues, and peers.