Pros of frp

• Open-source and self-hosted, offering more control and customization
• Supports multiple protocols (TCP, UDP, HTTP, HTTPS, STCP)
• Allows for more complex configurations and advanced features

Cons of frp

• Requires more technical knowledge to set up and configure
• Less user-friendly interface compared to ngrok
• May require additional server resources for self-hosting

Code Comparison

frp configuration example:

[common]
server_addr = x.x.x.x
server_port = 7000

[ssh]
type = tcp
local_ip = 127.0.0.1
local_port = 22
remote_port = 6000

ngrok configuration example:

authtoken: your_auth_token
tunnels:
  ssh:
    proto: tcp
    addr: 22

Both projects aim to provide secure tunneling services, but frp offers more flexibility and control at the cost of increased complexity. ngrok provides a simpler, more user-friendly experience with its managed service approach. The choice between the two depends on specific requirements, technical expertise, and desired level of control over the tunneling infrastructure.

Pros of SirTunnel

• Open-source and self-hosted, providing more control over data and infrastructure
• Lightweight and simple to set up, with minimal dependencies
• Designed for personal use, making it easier to customize for specific needs

Cons of SirTunnel

• Less feature-rich compared to ngrok, lacking advanced functionalities
• Limited documentation and community support
• May require more technical knowledge to set up and maintain

Code Comparison

SirTunnel:

async def handle_client(reader, writer):
    remote_reader, remote_writer = await asyncio.open_connection(
        '127.0.0.1', LOCAL_PORT)
    await asyncio.gather(
        pipe(reader, remote_writer),
        pipe(remote_reader, writer)
    )

ngrok:

func (c *Tunnel) Start() (err error) {
    c.conns = make(chan conn.Conn)
    go c.manager()
    return c.listen()
}

The code snippets show that SirTunnel uses Python's asyncio for handling connections, while ngrok is implemented in Go, utilizing goroutines for concurrent operations. SirTunnel's code appears more straightforward, reflecting its simpler design, while ngrok's code hints at a more complex architecture with separate connection management and listening processes.

Pros of sslh

• Open-source and self-hosted, providing more control over infrastructure
• Supports multiplexing multiple protocols (SSH, HTTPS, OpenVPN) on a single port
• Lightweight and efficient, with minimal resource usage

Cons of sslh

• Requires more technical knowledge to set up and configure
• Limited to local network or self-hosted environments
• Lacks built-in features like authentication and metrics

Code Comparison

sslh configuration example:

listen:
(
    { host: "0.0.0.0"; port: "443"; }
);
protocols:
(
     { name: "ssh"; service: "ssh"; host: "localhost"; port: "22"; },
     { name: "tls"; host: "localhost"; port: "8443"; }
);

ngrok configuration example:

authtoken: YOUR_AUTH_TOKEN
tunnels:
  webapp:
    proto: http
    addr: 8080
  ssh:
    proto: tcp
    addr: 22

sslh focuses on protocol multiplexing, while ngrok provides a more user-friendly approach to exposing local services to the internet. sslh is better suited for self-hosted environments with multiple services, whereas ngrok excels in quickly creating public endpoints for development and testing purposes.

Pros of go-http-tunnel

• Written in Go, offering better performance and lower resource usage
• Simpler and more lightweight, focusing specifically on HTTP tunneling
• Easier to integrate into existing Go projects

Cons of go-http-tunnel

• Less feature-rich compared to ngrok's extensive functionality
• Smaller community and ecosystem support
• Limited documentation and examples available

Code Comparison

ngrok (Python):

from pyngrok import ngrok

public_url = ngrok.connect(8000)
print(f"Public URL: {public_url}")

go-http-tunnel (Go):

import "github.com/mmatczuk/go-http-tunnel"

tunnel := tunnel.NewServer(&tunnel.ServerConfig{
    Addr: ":8000",
})
tunnel.Start()

Summary

go-http-tunnel is a lightweight, Go-based alternative to ngrok, offering better performance and easier integration into Go projects. However, it lacks the extensive features and community support of ngrok. ngrok provides a more comprehensive tunneling solution with additional functionality, while go-http-tunnel focuses specifically on HTTP tunneling with a simpler approach. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the desired level of functionality.

Pros of Chisel

• Open-source and self-hosted, offering more control and customization
• Supports both TCP and UDP tunneling
• Includes built-in SSH server functionality

Cons of Chisel

• Less user-friendly setup compared to ngrok's simplicity
• Smaller community and fewer resources available
• May require more technical knowledge to configure and use effectively

Code Comparison

Chisel server setup:

chisel server --port 8080 --reverse

ngrok setup:

ngrok http 8080

Key Differences

• Chisel is primarily designed for reverse tunneling, while ngrok focuses on exposing local servers to the internet
• ngrok offers a managed service with additional features like custom domains and analytics
• Chisel provides more flexibility for advanced networking scenarios but requires more configuration

Use Cases

Chisel is better suited for:

• Self-hosted environments
• Complex networking setups
• Scenarios requiring both TCP and UDP tunneling

ngrok is preferable for:

• Quick and easy setup for exposing local servers
• Developers needing a managed solution with minimal configuration
• Projects requiring additional features like custom domains and request inspection

Both tools serve similar purposes but cater to different user needs and technical requirements.

Pros of bore

• Open-source and self-hostable, offering more control and customization
• Lightweight and simple to use, with minimal dependencies
• Written in Rust, providing better performance and memory safety

Cons of bore

• Less feature-rich compared to ngrok (e.g., lacks advanced authentication options)
• Smaller community and ecosystem, potentially leading to fewer resources and integrations
• May require more manual configuration for complex setups

Code comparison

bore:

use tokio::net::TcpListener;
use tokio::io::{AsyncReadExt, AsyncWriteExt};

#[tokio::main]
async fn main() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
    let listener = TcpListener::bind("127.0.0.1:8080").await?;
    // ... (additional code)
}

ngrok:

package main

import (
    "net/http"
    "github.com/inconshreveable/ngrok/ngrok"
)

func main() {
    http.HandleFunc("/", func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
        // ... (request handling code)
    })
    ngrok.Listen(ngrok.Config{Addr: ":8080"})
}

Both projects aim to provide tunneling solutions, but bore focuses on simplicity and performance, while ngrok offers a more comprehensive feature set. bore is ideal for developers who prefer open-source solutions and want more control, while ngrok may be better suited for those requiring a robust, battle-tested platform with extensive features and support.