Comparison of NAT Traversal Solutions

gistfile1.md

Comparison of NAT Traversal Solutions

Solution	Pros	Cons
connet	• True peer-to-peer architecture with clients on both ends • Enhanced privacy (traffic doesn't pass through central servers) • Better performance through direct connections when possible • All communications encrypted with TLS • Granular access control with mandatory tokens • Relay fallback when direct connections aren't possible • Can be embedded in other Go applications • Supports various transport protocols (TCP, UDP via QUIC)	• Newer project with smaller community • Requires clients on both source and destination • Currently in alpha status • More complex setup compared to ngrok • Requires understanding of both source and destination concepts
rathole	• Extremely lightweight (binary as small as ~500KB) • Optimized for resource-constrained devices • High performance with larger bandwidth than alternatives • Written in Rust for safety and speed • Mandatory token-based security • Hot reload capability for dynamic configuration • Supports both TCP and UDP protocols • Flexible encryption options (Noise Protocol, TLS) • Low memory footprint	• Traditional client-server model (not P2P) • Requires a server with public IP • Smaller community than FRP • Configuration split between client and server sides • Limited web interface options
FRP	• Mature project with strong community support • Frequent updates and active development • Supports TCP, UDP, HTTP and HTTPS protocols • P2P connect mode available for direct connections • Well-documented with many examples • Extensive configuration options • Good balance of features and performance	• Higher resource consumption than rathole • Traditional client-server model as primary architecture • More complex configuration than ngrok • P2P mode not as central to design as connet • Requires more setup for production environments
ngrok	• Extremely simple setup and usage • Works instantly with minimal configuration • Well-established commercial service • Global infrastructure for reliable performance • Offers free and paid plans • Advanced features like custom domains and auth • Detailed analytics and observability • No need to maintain your own server • Excellent documentation and support	• Closed source and proprietary • Free tier has limitations (connections, bandwidth) • No peer-to-peer capabilities • All traffic goes through ngrok servers • Less privacy than self-hosted solutions • Can be expensive for production use cases • Less flexibility than open-source alternatives