Comment by louwrentius a day ago
I think Wireguard is awesome and I use it exclusively.
That said, when traveling - on hotel wifi - for internet to work, TCP port 443 is always open, thus OpenVPN will always work if you run it on that port.
For Wireguard, there isn’t a reliable always-open UDP port. Port 123 or 53 could work sometimes, but it’s not as guaranteed.
For any other application though, Wireguard would be my first choice.
Some VPN applications provide the means by which to tunnel WG over TCP. Some provide those as standalone tools: <https://github.com/mullvad/udp-over-tcp>
The one above has a very simple protocol:
The format of the data inside the TCP stream is very simple. Each datagram is preceded with a 16 bit unsigned integer in big endian byte order, specifying the length of the datagram.
If you are doing it manually you can include two peers, one over UDP and one over TCP and prioritize traffic flow over the UDP one. Commercial VPN apps tend to handle that with "auto".
If you want to be fancy or you are confident that the UDP blocking service can offer high performance you can include a third peer using udp2raw: <https://github.com/wangyu-/udp2raw>
The reason why you may want to retain udp-over-tcp is that some sophisticated firewalls may block fake-TCP.
> For Wireguard, there isn’t a reliable always-open UDP port. Port 123 or 53 could work sometimes, but it’s not as guaranteed.
Couldn't you pipe it through something like udp2raw in those few cases? Probably performance would be worse/terrible, but then you say it's on hotel network so those tend to be terrible anyways.
Yep, I really want to dote on wireguard and have contributed a little bit to it in its early years, but I've always found dsvpn to work at any cafe/hotel/hospital/etc. where I roam (except Sydney Airport - fuck their hostile wifi).
[dsvpn]: https://github.com/jedisct1/dsvpn