Nice, just today, I was trying ngrok, localtunnel, and a couple more, they all were pretty slow, fair enough for the free tier, but I'm interested in knowing is there something architecturally hard or expensive with having fast traffic?
I love this and will definitely try it.
I would honestly love to have it with a dockerized version with something like caddy that manages ssl so I can basically just run a docker command have it up and running.
Thank you very much! Great stuff will give it a try.
This should not add more latency than your average VPN, since the overhead of websocket is minimal and roundtrip time is about the same.
At the moment, this is running on a single-instance with no load-balancing. The intended use case was to enable streaming of MCP SSE traffic, which is very lightweight. I would expect this to be able to handle a lot of traffic just like that, but if people start using the public instance for other use cases, I will need to think of ways to scale it.
There are other tunneling solutions that support both and https, websockets using ssh tunnels for the communication. For example I use https://tuns.sh which is a managed sish instance
The current implementation is HTTP-focused as that was the primary use case. TCP tunneling is possible architecturally but not something I've had in mind. I suggest start by raising an issue on GitHub and adding thumbs up. If it receives enough attention, I will prioritize it. I am less familiar with what would supporting UDP entail, so cannot answer that right now.
Add it to the list https://github.com/anderspitman/awesome-tunneling
That list is where my research started! Was surprised not to find a pure node.js solution that's easy to self-host and has CLI/SDK.
Added https://github.com/anderspitman/awesome-tunneling/pull/214
Nice, just today, I was trying ngrok, localtunnel, and a couple more, they all were pretty slow, fair enough for the free tier, but I'm interested in knowing is there something architecturally hard or expensive with having fast traffic?
I love this and will definitely try it.
I would honestly love to have it with a dockerized version with something like caddy that manages ssl so I can basically just run a docker command have it up and running.
Thank you very much! Great stuff will give it a try.
You might need to define 'fast'.
This should not add more latency than your average VPN, since the overhead of websocket is minimal and roundtrip time is about the same.
At the moment, this is running on a single-instance with no load-balancing. The intended use case was to enable streaming of MCP SSE traffic, which is very lightweight. I would expect this to be able to handle a lot of traffic just like that, but if people start using the public instance for other use cases, I will need to think of ways to scale it.
I am keeping one eye on how this is scaling.
At the moment there are 5 active tunnels and CPU is at 2%.
I would therefore expect that this can scale quite a bit before it becomes some sort of bottleneck.
Who knows though – maybe I am underestimating the demand. Didn't expect this to get to the front page of HN.
PiperNet?
So funny how no one picked up on this.
I was expecting this to be the first comment.
Cool website! Did you use any web framework or just plain HTML/CSS?
Just plain HTML/CSS.
I did this morning in a rush. Didn't expect anyone to compliment it. Thank you!
Would this be able to support TCP and UDP in the future?
There are other tunneling solutions that support both and https, websockets using ssh tunnels for the communication. For example I use https://tuns.sh which is a managed sish instance
Indeed, there are more mature solutions. The primary reason I made Pipenet is because I needed something that can be embedded in Node.js client.
The current implementation is HTTP-focused as that was the primary use case. TCP tunneling is possible architecturally but not something I've had in mind. I suggest start by raising an issue on GitHub and adding thumbs up. If it receives enough attention, I will prioritize it. I am less familiar with what would supporting UDP entail, so cannot answer that right now.