AJ,
Not to go too far off on a tangent, but is there a particular reason
to not use sslh itself? Having not had the occasion to use it, I had
thought it was the go-to solution for this scenario, and am curious what
it can't accomplish.
Jima
On 2015-07-01 17:33, AJ ONeal (Home) wrote:
I'm trying to replicate the scenario of overloading port 443 for ssh,
https, and openvpn, which covered in these blogs:
https://314es.pl/https-openvpn-and-ssh-on-one-port-thanks-to-haproxy
http://blog.manty.net/2014/12/haproxy-as-very-very-overloaded-sslh.html
https://dgl.cx/2010/01/haproxy-ssh-and-ssl-on-same-port
They each do things a different way and even when I've gotten things to
work, they only work sometimes (as it one connection may work as expected,
disconnecting and reconnecting may or may not).
Right now I'm just toying around with the idea, but I'd like to have the
various services of the home cloud server I'm working on be accessible even
in unfavorable conditions.
I'm also interested in websocket tunneling, which may turn out to be a
better solution:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/wstunnel
AJ ONeal
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
