Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature request: separately run Daedalus service and VPN interface #105

Open
solarelf opened this issue May 11, 2019 · 11 comments
Open

Feature request: separately run Daedalus service and VPN interface #105

solarelf opened this issue May 11, 2019 · 11 comments

Comments

@solarelf
Copy link

Hi all!

I would like to suggest a change in how user can use D.,

Consider this: if a possibility to run D. service and VPN interface separately existed (the way it is implemented in Orbox), we could use D. as a DNS proxy server, and forward DNS requests to it without occupying VPN. So, I can see how D. can be used side-by-side a firewall app, or SSH client or VPN client etc., which all occupy VPN (and only one is available on non-rooted devices).

@PeratX
Copy link
Member

PeratX commented May 12, 2019

Nice suggestion!
I will work on it when I passed NCEE in July.
The technology has already implemented, but it need adjustments to support advanced protocols, such as DNS over HTTPS/TLS/TCP.

@PeratX
Copy link
Member

PeratX commented Jun 16, 2019

now working on it

@solarelf
Copy link
Author

Excellent! We are all looking forward for this feature, thank you!

@PeratX
Copy link
Member

PeratX commented Jul 14, 2019

I am wondering which ip address should DNS Server listening on?
I think those apps won't support uncommon port.

@solarelf
Copy link
Author

@PeratX Simple. Daedalus DNS server should definetely listen on 127.0.0.1, and optionally on enumerated NICs ip's, like 192.168.0.1, 10.1.10.1 etc. The best (and most suitable option) could be letting user make a choice: ip's to run on, and port number to serve. In my case, 127.0.0.1 and Port 5353 will do the trick (NetGuard defaults). Thank you for your prompt answer!

@PeratX
Copy link
Member

PeratX commented Jul 15, 2019

Seems I need to write a separate server with different handlers again!
These providers cannot be reused in this mode.
I will offer an option to let user customize ip and port.
Should I use Netty? But if I do that, apk size will increase a lot.

@solarelf
Copy link
Author

@PeratX Humm... I did not know that an option that seems so simple and obvious could require so much efforts to implement.. apk size is not any problem for majority of contemporary devices though. IP should be selected from enumerated interfaces list (127.0.0.1 included), while the serving port indeed should be selected arbitrary by user from higher ports (>1024). Thank you very much for your ongoing interest in this valuable feature!

@PeratX
Copy link
Member

PeratX commented Nov 21, 2019

Starting implementing it to Android

@solarelf
Copy link
Author

@PeratX Hurray!

@PeratX
Copy link
Member

PeratX commented Nov 22, 2019

@solarelf
Copy link
Author

@krissada983 Hi, I did not really understand why this quotation, it was me whò addressed the #10t, but as far as I know, it is not released yet, although PeratX invested much efforts into it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants
@PeratX @solarelf and others