[stunnel-users] SNI with protocol=proxy ?

[Michal Trojnara]

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  
http proxy.

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,
	Mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.stunnel.org/pipermail/stunnel-users/attachments/20120329/b45b67cd/attachment.sig>