ANSWERED Could you please add support for the AmneziaWG protocol in future versions of Eddie?

[voxenutu@gmail.com 23]

Hello,

I am a user from Mainland China. Over long connections, both SSH and SSL get blocked and the connection is reset, so none of the Eddie-supported protocols can maintain a long-term connection. Only the AmneziaWG protocol can sustain long connections without speed degradation—and it’s even faster and more stable than standard WireGuard. However, switching servers with AmneziaWG is somewhat cumbersome.

I would like to ask: could future versions of Eddie support the AmneziaWG protocol? I believe it could completely replace standard WireGuard. This would be a huge benefit for AirVPN users behind the firewall. The AmneziaWG protocol’s source code is open-source on GitHub under the MIT license and supports free commercial use. I strongly hope Eddie can add support for AmneziaWG.
Thank you!

[go558a83nk 388]

nevermind

[Phanuel 2]

I'm also wondering if something like that could be possible. It doesn't have to be Amnezia, it could be something of your own. SSH isn't working for me anymore, while SSL works fine, though both of the protocols are nowhere to be considered fast, they are just too slow to be used. I currently use Amnezia, because it's the quickest possible protocol that actually works. 

While it would be great if it was added, I've recently confronted a problem that I don't think could be solved. I think my provider started to block all the IPs from a certain server provider that AirVPN uses, and I'm afraid it may block the rest of them as well. It doesn't connect me anymore to the servers of that provider, no matter if I use SSL or AmneziaWG protocols. If anyone has solutions to this problem, I would appreciate any help. 

[voxenutu@gmail.com 23]

In your situation, you can only use Tor. It routes your traffic through global nodes, which are impossible to block entirely. Use obfuscated bridges like Tor's webtunnel, and run AirVPN over Tor—but keep in mind, it's very slow.

[Tech Jedi Alex 1574]

On 7/4/2025 at 11:44 AM, EMULE said:

I believe it could completely replace standard WireGuard.

I wouldn't say that, seeing as the project seemingly recommends using its own Linux kernel module, so only specialized projects may pull this out-of-tree module and compile it into their kernels. On a standard router, maybe even if you flash it with specialized ROMs like OpenWrt, you may find Wireguard, but not AmneziaWG. It also seems to need its own forks of standard Wireguard tools which you probably won't find in some distribution families. Maybe Debian at some point, later Ubuntu, and maybe maybe Fedora. On Arch, it might surface on the AUR (or probably is), and on SuSE on the OBS. Red Hat will never adopt it, and if Enterprise is not really interested, you get into a situation where single developers, or a single group of devs, are maintaining something used commercially again. It is not sustainable; you'll never know if it'll still be there in 5 years, or if internal disputes won't force the project to be forked and developed under a different name. But standard Wireguard is developed by well-known researchers, right in the kernel, and garnered enough commercial interest that some consumer networking companies implemented it as a feature. Wireguard is sustainable. AmneziaWG is not. It will never replace standard Wireguard.
Besides, the aim of Wireguard is not privacy. And most people around the forums (by topics created in the forums, at least) use the VPN not for the privacy aspect but because they want to torrent. What they're looking for is performance. You don't need AmneziaWG for that.

What I'm concerned about is the relationship Wireguard <> AmneziaWG. AmneziaWG would have the obligation to behave in a way a standard Wireguard behaves if server and client differ. I don't know how Wireguard will react if those fixed parameters talked about in the docs are altered. Maybe it's not even a problem, since AmneziaWG clients can connect here normally. At least according to some threads it doesn't seem to be a problem. Dunno.

But, no, a replacement is highly unlikely, both generally and specifically on AirVPN.

[AirGuest233 2]

I am also in China and I can confirm that OpenVPN (IP Entry 3 & UDP & Port 443) works perfectly in China with great speed (over 200Mbps on some DE servers).BTW could you tell me which ISP you are using?And which server you are connected to?

Edited ... by AirGuest233

[voxenutu@gmail.com 23]

10 小时前，OpenSourcerer 说：

我不会这么说，因为该项目似乎建议使用自己的 Linux 内核模块，因此只有专门的项目才能提取这个树外模块并将其编译到他们的内核中。在标准路由器上，即使你用 OpenWrt 等专用 ROM 刷新它，你也可能会找到 Wireguard，但找不到 AmneziaWG。它似乎还需要自己的标准 Wireguard 工具的分支，您可能在某些发行版系列中找不到这些工具。也许在某个时候是 Debian，后来是 Ubuntu，也许是 Fedora。在 Arch 上，它可能会出现在 AUR（或可能已经）上，而 SuSE 上则会出现在 OBS 上。Red Hat 永远不会采用它，如果 Enterprise 并不真正感兴趣，你就会陷入这样一种情况：单个开发人员或单个开发人员组再次维护商业使用的东西。这是不可持续的;你永远不知道 5 年后它是否仍然存在，或者内部争议是否不会迫使项目分叉并以不同的名字开发。但标准 Wireguard 是由知名研究人员在内核中开发的，并获得了足够的商业兴趣，以至于一些消费者网络公司将其作为一项功能实施。Wireguard 是可持续的。AmneziaWG 不是。它永远不会取代标准的 Wireguard。
此外，Wireguard 的目标不是隐私。论坛周围的大多数人（至少通过论坛中创建的主题）使用 VPN 不是为了隐私方面，而是因为他们想下载种子。他们正在寻找的是性能。你不需要 AmneziaWG 来做这件事。

我担心的是 Wireguard <> AmneziaWG 的关系。如果服务器和客户端不同，AmneziaWG 有义务以标准 Wireguard 的行为方式运行。我不知道如果文档中谈到的那些固定参数被更改，Wireguard 会如何反应。也许这甚至不是问题，因为 AmneziaWG 客户端可以正常连接到这里。至少根据一些线程，这似乎不是问题。不知道。

但是，不，无论是在 AirVPN 上还是在 AirVPN 上，更换的可能性都很小。

你的解释很清楚，谢谢。虽然我不是专业的程序员，但我能理解。

[voxenutu@gmail.com 23]

10 hours ago, OpenSourcerer said:

I wouldn't say that, seeing as the project seemingly recommends using its own Linux kernel module, so only specialized projects may pull this out-of-tree module and compile it into their kernels. On a standard router, maybe even if you flash it with specialized ROMs like OpenWrt, you may find Wireguard, but not AmneziaWG. It also seems to need its own forks of standard Wireguard tools which you probably won't find in some distribution families. Maybe Debian at some point, later Ubuntu, and maybe maybe Fedora. On Arch, it might surface on the AUR (or probably is), and on SuSE on the OBS. Red Hat will never adopt it, and if Enterprise is not really interested, you get into a situation where single developers, or a single group of devs, are maintaining something used commercially again. It is not sustainable; you'll never know if it'll still be there in 5 years, or if internal disputes won't force the project to be forked and developed under a different name. But standard Wireguard is developed by well-known researchers, right in the kernel, and garnered enough commercial interest that some consumer networking companies implemented it as a feature. Wireguard is sustainable. AmneziaWG is not. It will never replace standard Wireguard.
Besides, the aim of Wireguard is not privacy. And most people around the forums (by topics created in the forums, at least) use the VPN not for the privacy aspect but because they want to torrent. What they're looking for is performance. You don't need AmneziaWG for that.

What I'm concerned about is the relationship Wireguard <> AmneziaWG. AmneziaWG would have the obligation to behave in a way a standard Wireguard behaves if server and client differ. I don't know how Wireguard will react if those fixed parameters talked about in the docs are altered. Maybe it's not even a problem, since AmneziaWG clients can connect here normally. At least according to some threads it doesn't seem to be a problem. Dunno.

But, no, a replacement is highly unlikely, both generally and specifically on AirVPN.

Your explanation was very clear, thank you. Although I'm not a professional programmer, I can understand it.

[voxenutu@gmail.com 23]

I'm using China Broadcasting Network, and ever since I started using AirVPN, I've mainly used it for P2P sharing. After all, I first came across AirVPN through an ad on an eMule website, so I've always wanted to improve speed and connection duration. Unfortunately, due to advanced traffic shaping technologies, my connection has become slower and slower, eventually getting reset. At first, I had speeds of over 150 Mbps, but they gradually dropped to 8 Mbps, and after about 10 hours, the connection finally disconnected. I think my network environment poses a significant challenge for both VPNs and P2P networks. In the future, I may no longer use AirVPN for P2P sharing, and instead just use it for browsing. The basic circumvention service that AirVPN provides still works quite well for that purpose.

[AirGuest233 2]

Well, it's the worst ISP in China.They shape everything.I suggest you should switch to other ISP such as China Telecom , China Unicom or China Mobile.You may find some cheap plans on the RedNote.But BE CAREFUL.
If you switch your ISP to I mentioned above, you could try these servers.
China Telecom: NL , DE , US SJC , US LAX
China Unicom: nearly all european servers (except IE , NO , SE) (I recommend NL , DE) , US servers in the west coast.
China Mobile: JP , SG servers
I recommend using OpenVPN (IP Entry 3 & UDP & Port 443),since WireGuard is too easy to be identified (run a Wireshark and you know what I mean).
If you have IPv6 connection,you should use them first (unless it's too slow for you).The GFW is less aggressive on IPv6 compared to IPv4

Edited ... by AirGuest233

[voxenutu@gmail.com 23]

On 7/6/2025 at 8:12 AM, AirGuest233 said:

Well, it's the worst ISP in China.They shape everything.I suggest you should switch to other ISP such as China Telecom , China Unicom or China Mobile.You may find some cheap plans on the RedNote.But BE CAREFUL.
If you switch your ISP to I mentioned above, you could try these servers.
China Telecom: NL , DE , US SJC , US LAX
China Unicom: nearly all european servers (except IE , NO , SE) (I recommend NL , DE) , US servers in the west coast.
China Mobile: JP , SG servers
I recommend using OpenVPN (IP Entry 3 & UDP & Port 443),since WireGuard is too easy to be identified (run a Wireshark and you know what I mean).
If you have IPv6 connection,you should use them first (unless it's too slow for you).The GFW is less aggressive on IPv6 compared to IPv4

Thank you for your guidance.