when will socket5 or http(s) proxy be supported?

[romanholidaypancakes]

[majestrate]

never.

[nerd36]

It was my request, too
I really want to know why not? I'm not sure if in my country all peers be accessible.
(P.S. you can add proxy mode (Instead of VPN mode) it also can solve problem)

[majestrate]

you can't shove udp packets over a socks or http proxy, even if you could it would be over tcp and would suck, a lot.

[jagerman]

Lokinet works at a lower level of the networking stack, which isn't compatible with socks5 (or http) proxying.

[BlohoJo]

Then it's useless.

[majestrate]

I have never seen any arguments good enough to make me consider adding socks/http proxy support, only arguments that make me want to never add support for it.

[jagerman]

Then it's useless.

Comments like this are not going to change anything (and in fact, probably make us less likely to even consider it). If people strongly want SOCKS proxying for some reason then there needs to be a compelling reason why:

1. SOCKS would be a superior solution to network access than Lokinet's DNS+OS-level network tunnel approach.

2. Running your own simple socks proxy on top of lokinet can't fulfill that need.

As @majestrate says, we haven't heard a compelling argument. Typically the argument seems to boil down to people having done it that way before, and being uncomfortable with considering other, better ways to do things.

[majestrate]

additionally, socks/http proxy support for wire protocol traffic will never happen as that cannot carry UDP packets which is the requirement. we could do websockets but ... no.

[nerd36]

In my country ordinary VPNs are not blocked because they know with fear they have created every body use them to only do safe activity in blocked social media (posting about life activities on twitter, watching YouTube videos ...) They would never block them for two reasons. I will tell you one of them. They prefer users see some so-called blocked contents and these are anti religious and porn as all dictators prefer an atheist prudent nation and also porn for obvious reason
But someone who connects to your servers definitely want to make problem. This is why I prefer to connect to Lokinet through one of these 3rd party VPNs other than directly
For UDP requirement you can provide shadowsocks option, It supports proxifying UDP. Also for Linux there is already some VPN-chain codes working for OpenVPN profiles. It is more acceptable method other than shadowsocks if you implement them in your client program (OpenVPN => Lokinet VPN).

[majestrate]

does shadowsocks provide udp via socks5? i have never seen anyone ever actually implement udp forwarding via socks5.

[nerd36]

No it is just loosely based on SOCKS5

[majestrate]

if someone implements RFC1928 complaint UDP ASSOCIATE SOCKS5 proxy I would consider adding SOCKS5 support to lokinet. I have not ever seen anyone with this. Mostly because I have stopped looking for it years ago.