[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       stunnel-users
Subject:    Re: [stunnel-users] SNI with protocol=proxy ?
From:       Michal Trojnara <Michal.Trojnara () mirt ! net>
Date:       2012-03-29 19:08:18
Message-ID: 0C8629A7-562E-4F20-9242-2D03C2E80900 () mirt ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


Marek Majkowski wrote:
> If I may add my two cents, it's absolutely fine to just assume
> that `connect` can't be used in slave services. By doing otherwise
> you risk that stunnel may become another haproxy.

I don't think stunnel could ever compete with haproxy, as it's a  
transparent (protocol agnostic) proxy, while haproxy is a dedicated  
http proxy.

On the other hand for some basic scenarios it might be better to use  
stunnel instead of haproxy even for http.  I don't mind it.

In fact I implemented server-mode SNI mostly for "connect" option.  8-)

Greetings from Warsaw,
	Mike

["PGP.sig" (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
stunnel-users mailing list
stunnel-users@stunnel.org
http://stunnel.mirt.net/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]