[stunnel-users] SNI with protocol=proxy ?
Michal.Trojnara at mirt.net
Thu Mar 29 21:08:18 CEST 2012
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
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,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the stunnel-users