Pros of frp

• Supports multiple protocols (TCP, UDP, HTTP, HTTPS, STCP)
• More feature-rich with load balancing, custom domains, and plugins
• Active development with frequent updates and larger community

Cons of frp

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

Code Comparison

frp configuration example:

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

[web]
type = http
local_port = 80
custom_domains = example.com

go-http-tunnel configuration example:

tunnel:
  server_addr: "example.com:5223"
  insecure_skip_verify: true
tunnels:
  - name: "web"
    proto: "http"
    addr: "localhost:80"

Both projects aim to provide tunneling solutions, but frp offers a more comprehensive feature set at the cost of increased complexity. go-http-tunnel focuses on simplicity and ease of use, making it more suitable for basic HTTP tunneling needs. frp's broader protocol support and advanced features make it a better choice for complex networking scenarios, while go-http-tunnel excels in straightforward HTTP tunneling applications.

Pros of ngrok

• More feature-rich, offering advanced functionalities like OAuth and custom domains
• Provides a user-friendly web interface for managing tunnels
• Offers a robust free tier with generous usage limits

Cons of ngrok

• Closed-source, which may limit customization and self-hosting options
• Can be more complex to set up and configure for advanced use cases
• Paid plans can be expensive for high-volume users

Code Comparison

ngrok:

tunnel := ngrok.NewTunnel()
err := tunnel.Start("http://localhost:8080")
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}

go-http-tunnel:

tunnel := tunnel.NewServer(&tunnel.ServerConfig{
    Addr: ":8080",
})
err := tunnel.Start()
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}

Key Differences

• go-http-tunnel is open-source, allowing for more flexibility and customization
• ngrok offers a more comprehensive set of features out-of-the-box
• go-http-tunnel may be better suited for simpler, self-hosted tunneling needs
• ngrok provides a more polished user experience with its web interface and documentation
• go-http-tunnel might be preferred for projects requiring full control over the tunneling process

Both projects serve the purpose of creating secure tunnels, but they cater to different use cases and user preferences. The choice between them depends on specific requirements, such as the need for advanced features, self-hosting capabilities, and budget considerations.

Pros of awesome-tunneling

• Comprehensive list of tunneling tools and resources
• Regularly updated with community contributions
• Covers a wide range of tunneling solutions for various use cases

Cons of awesome-tunneling

• Not a standalone tunneling solution, just a curated list
• Requires users to evaluate and choose from multiple options
• May overwhelm beginners with too many choices

Code comparison

Not applicable, as awesome-tunneling is a curated list and doesn't contain code.

go-http-tunnel example:

tunnel := &Tunnel{
    Host: "example.com",
    Port: 80,
    Remote: "localhost:8080",
}
client.Listen(tunnel)

Summary

awesome-tunneling is a curated list of tunneling tools and resources, while go-http-tunnel is a specific tunneling implementation in Go. awesome-tunneling provides a comprehensive overview of available solutions, making it useful for research and comparison. However, it requires users to evaluate and choose from multiple options, which may be overwhelming for beginners.

go-http-tunnel, on the other hand, offers a ready-to-use tunneling solution with a focused set of features. It's more suitable for users who need a specific Go-based tunneling implementation without the need to explore multiple options.

The choice between the two depends on whether you need a specific tunneling solution (go-http-tunnel) or want to explore and compare various tunneling options (awesome-tunneling).

Pros of sslh

• Multi-protocol support: Handles various protocols (HTTP, SSH, OpenVPN, etc.) on a single port
• Written in C, potentially offering better performance for low-level operations
• Mature project with a longer history and wider adoption

Cons of sslh

• Less focused on HTTP tunneling specifically
• May require more complex configuration for advanced use cases
• Not written in Go, which could be a disadvantage for Go-centric environments

Code Comparison

sslh (C):

/* Parse command-line options */
parse_cmdline(argc, argv);

/* Open syslog connection */
setup_syslog();

/* Init protocols */
init_protocols();

go-http-tunnel (Go):

// Parse command-line flags
flag.Parse()

// Set up logging
log.SetFlags(log.Lshortfile)

// Create and start the tunnel
tunnel := tunnel.New(config)
tunnel.Start()

Both projects handle command-line parsing and logging setup, but go-http-tunnel's code is more concise due to Go's standard library. sslh's code reflects its multi-protocol nature, while go-http-tunnel focuses specifically on HTTP tunneling.

Pros of chisel

• More feature-rich, supporting both TCP and UDP tunneling
• Offers a user-friendly web interface for management
• Includes built-in server and client fingerprinting for enhanced security

Cons of chisel

• May have a steeper learning curve due to more advanced features
• Potentially higher resource usage compared to go-http-tunnel
• Less focused on HTTP-specific tunneling

Code Comparison

go-http-tunnel:

tunnel := &Tunnel{
    Host:     "example.com",
    Listener: l,
    Protocol: "http",
}

chisel:

chisel.NewServer(&chisel.Config{
    Reverse: true,
    Auth:    "user:pass",
})

Summary

While go-http-tunnel focuses specifically on HTTP tunneling with simplicity, chisel offers a more comprehensive tunneling solution with support for various protocols. chisel provides additional features like a web interface and enhanced security measures, but may require more resources and have a steeper learning curve. go-http-tunnel might be preferable for simpler HTTP-specific use cases, while chisel is better suited for more complex tunneling requirements across different protocols.

Pros of gost

• More comprehensive feature set, including support for multiple protocols (HTTP, SOCKS4, SOCKS5, SS)
• Highly configurable with various encryption and authentication options
• Active development and regular updates

Cons of gost

• More complex setup and configuration due to extensive features
• Potentially higher resource usage for simple tunneling tasks
• Steeper learning curve for basic use cases

Code comparison

go-http-tunnel:

tunnel := &Tunnel{
    Host: "example.com",
    Port: 80,
    Protocol: "http",
}
client.OpenTunnel(tunnel)

gost:

chain := gost.NewChain(
    gost.Node{Addr: "localhost:8080", Protocol: "http"},
    gost.Node{Addr: "example.com:443", Protocol: "tls"},
)
gost.RunChain(chain)

Summary

gost offers a more feature-rich and versatile solution for creating secure tunnels and proxies, supporting multiple protocols and advanced configurations. However, this comes at the cost of increased complexity and potentially higher resource usage. go-http-tunnel, on the other hand, provides a simpler and more focused approach to HTTP tunneling, which may be preferable for users with straightforward requirements or those who prioritize ease of use.

When choosing between the two, consider your specific needs, the level of customization required, and your familiarity with tunneling concepts. gost is better suited for complex scenarios or users who need support for multiple protocols, while go-http-tunnel may be more appropriate for simpler HTTP tunneling tasks.