@FastSpace said in HTTP/3 Работает :D:
Если у вас есть белый ip, то сложностей не должно возникнуть, однако если ip за NAT нужен некий танец с бубном, вот этому шопы с прокси (особенно с резидентами или серверными прокси) не будут парится с этим UDP. Люди массово не покупают у провайдра услугу белый ip.
Не только в этом проблема. Если попытаться найти прокси, который можно самому устанавливать на свой сервер, столкнешься с отсутствием софта с поддержкой UDP.
Есть вещи, которые архитектурно не понятно как решать, если проксировать UDP трафик, если это не well-known DNS(53-й порт), который достаточно простой.
Proxying UDP traffic is generally considered to be a harder task than proxying TCP traffic for a few reasons:
-
Connectionless Protocol: UDP is a connectionless protocol, which means that each packet is sent independently and there is no inherent order or reliability to the delivery of packets. This makes it more difficult to track and route packets in a proxy environment.
-
NAT Traversal: Network Address Translation (NAT) is commonly used to allow multiple devices to share a single IP address. This can make it difficult to route UDP packets, as the NAT device may not know which device to send the response packet to.
-
Statelessness: UDP is stateless, which means that there is no inherent state information maintained between packets. This can make it more difficult to track and manage packets in a proxy environment.
-
Low-Level Protocol: UDP is a low-level protocol, which means that it operates closer to the network layer of the OSI model. This can make it more difficult to intercept and modify packets in a proxy environment.
All of these factors make proxying UDP traffic a more challenging task than proxying TCP traffic. While it is possible to proxy UDP traffic, it often requires specialized knowledge and techniques to overcome these challenges.
