Pros of frp

• More feature-rich, supporting multiple protocols (TCP/UDP/HTTP/HTTPS/STCP)
• Offers a web-based dashboard for monitoring and management
• Provides built-in encryption and compression options

Cons of frp

• More complex setup and configuration
• Higher resource usage due to additional features
• Steeper learning curve for new users

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

tcpproxy usage example:

proxy := &tcpproxy.Proxy{}
proxy.AddRoute(":80", tcpproxy.To("10.0.0.1:80"))
log.Fatal(proxy.Run())

frp offers a more comprehensive configuration file with various options, while tcpproxy provides a simpler, programmatic approach to setting up proxies. frp's configuration allows for more detailed control over different types of connections, whereas tcpproxy focuses primarily on TCP proxying with a straightforward API.

Pros of Chisel

• Supports multiple protocols (TCP, UDP, SOCKS5) and tunneling methods
• Built-in encryption and authentication for secure connections
• Cross-platform compatibility with easy-to-use CLI

Cons of Chisel

• More complex setup and configuration compared to tcpproxy
• Higher resource usage due to additional features

Code Comparison

tcpproxy:

listener, err := net.Listen("tcp", *listen)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}

Chisel:

chisel.NewServer(&chisel.Config{
    KeySeed: *key,
    Auth:    *auth,
    Proxy:   *proxy,
})

Key Differences

1. Functionality: Chisel offers more advanced features like tunneling and encryption, while tcpproxy focuses on simple TCP proxying.
2. Ease of use: tcpproxy is straightforward and easy to set up, whereas Chisel requires more configuration but provides greater flexibility.
3. Performance: tcpproxy is likely to have lower overhead due to its simplicity, while Chisel may consume more resources to support its additional features.

Use Cases

• tcpproxy: Ideal for simple TCP proxying needs with minimal setup
• Chisel: Better suited for complex networking scenarios requiring secure tunneling and multi-protocol support

Pros of sslh

• Supports multiple protocols (SSH, HTTP, SSL, etc.) on a single port
• Includes built-in failover and load balancing capabilities
• More mature project with a longer development history

Cons of sslh

• Written in C, which may be less accessible for some developers
• Configuration can be more complex due to its multi-protocol nature
• May have higher resource usage due to protocol detection overhead

Code Comparison

sslh (C):

/* Read from client */
n = read(client_sock, buffer, sizeof(buffer));
if (n == -1) {
    perror("read");
    return;
}

tcpproxy (Go):

// Read from client
n, err := src.Read(buf)
if err != nil {
    log.Printf("error reading from %s->%s: %s", src.RemoteAddr(), dst.RemoteAddr(), err)
    return
}

Both projects handle reading from client connections, but tcpproxy uses Go's error handling approach, while sslh uses C-style error checking with perror().

sslh offers more advanced protocol multiplexing features, making it suitable for complex setups. tcpproxy, being written in Go, may be easier to extend and maintain for developers familiar with the language. tcpproxy focuses on simple TCP proxying, while sslh provides broader protocol support and additional features like failover and load balancing.

Pros of ngrok

• Provides secure tunneling to localhost, allowing easy exposure of local servers to the internet
• Offers a user-friendly web interface for managing tunnels and inspecting traffic
• Supports custom subdomains and wildcard domains for easier access

Cons of ngrok

• Requires an account and authentication for full functionality
• May have limitations on free tier usage, including bandwidth and number of tunnels
• More complex setup compared to simple TCP proxying

Code Comparison

ngrok (Go):

tunnel := &Tunnel{
    PublicUrl: "https://example.ngrok.io",
    Protocol:  "https",
    Config:    config,
}

tcpproxy (Go):

var p tcpproxy.Proxy
p.AddRoute(":80", tcpproxy.To("10.0.0.1:8080"))
log.Fatal(p.Run())

Summary

ngrok is a feature-rich tunneling solution that provides secure access to localhost servers from the internet, with a user-friendly interface and additional features like custom domains. However, it requires authentication and may have usage limitations.

tcpproxy is a simpler, lightweight TCP proxy library that focuses on efficient TCP connection forwarding without additional features like tunneling or web interfaces. It's more suitable for basic proxying needs within a local network or controlled environment.

Choose ngrok for exposing local servers to the internet with added security and management features, or tcpproxy for simple, efficient TCP proxying within a network.

Pros of nps

• More comprehensive feature set, including file transfer and web management
• Supports multiple protocols (TCP, UDP, HTTP, HTTPS, SOCKS5)
• Built-in web GUI for easier management and monitoring

Cons of nps

• More complex setup and configuration
• Potentially higher resource usage due to additional features
• Less focused on pure TCP proxying compared to tcpproxy

Code Comparison

nps (client configuration):

client := &nps.Client{
    ServerAddr: "server_address:8024",
    Vkey:       "your_vkey",
    Type:       "tcp",
    LocalAddr:  "127.0.0.1:80",
    RemoteAddr: "127.0.0.1:8080",
}

tcpproxy (basic usage):

var p tcpproxy.Proxy
p.AddRoute(":80", tcpproxy.To("backend.example.com:8080"))
log.Fatal(p.Run())

Summary

nps offers a more feature-rich solution with support for multiple protocols and a web GUI, making it suitable for complex networking scenarios. However, this comes at the cost of increased complexity and potentially higher resource usage. tcpproxy, on the other hand, provides a simpler and more focused TCP proxying solution, which may be preferable for users who only need basic TCP proxy functionality.