feature: support fwmark in server side to split outbound tunnel #1466
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The PR helps set
outbound_fwmarkin TCP connection options for different server configs.With this feature, we do not need to start multiple server processes, to support different outbound tunnels. Now many websites forbid access from some VPS IPs. We may need to switch our proxy servers with special browser plugins, for example
OmegaSwitchy.Another solution is to setup split-tunnels after the server, which is already supported by
V2Ray. The server will choose the right tunnel based on the domain address.I think the
fwmarkis the best solution for distinguishing TCP data packages. In my case, I setupwireguardand route rules withfwmark, to route marked data packages to different servers. It works well.Why not
outbound_interface? I ever had some problem for ipv6 interface binding.