Leaderboard

Hello! We're very glad to hear that the suggestion by support team worked. We don't know for sure, and we can imagine three potential, alternative explanations: 1) All the bootstrap servers IP addresses have become known and they are blocked. Unlikely explanation: if you have tested our "secret" bootstrap servers, we think that T-Mobile can not know them. 2) The specific connection used by Eddie (HTTP) is blocked when the underlying payload is encrypted. Eddie encrypts data to the bootstrap servers and then sends them over plain HTTP: in the past it was a good method to bypass certain blocks. Of course data coming back are encrypted by the servers. 3) Direct access via HTTP(S) to IP addresses (in place of domain names) is blocked (not uncommon in various filter methods). To cross-check you may enter a name as secret bootstrap server (for example airvpn.org) in Eddie's Android edition settings. Kind regards

All the above are great ideas. 10Gbit would be huge and some way of auto-balancing load. I hate having to switch every time one gets over-loaded.

I propose to add an additional option to generate a config file per City (https://airvpn.org/generator/) that will connect to the most optimal server for that city based on server load. This would work similar to how when you connect via Country or Continent. What I mean is when generating config files (https://airvpn.org/generator/) you can only select the specific servers for each city, rather than selecting just the city itself. The problem with connecting via Country or Continent is it will often connect you to a less than optimal server relative to your location. For example, Chicago based connections might be connected to Florida etc. which ultimately leads to connections with bad latency and lower speeds.

I too came here as a Mullvad & IVPN refugee. Thank you AirVPN for holding strong and supporting port forwarding.

That blog post is very vague. "Undesirable content" could mean anything depending on the jurisdiction. Also they did not state which specific laws were being broken, or whether there was a court order to remove PF, which seems like pretty important details to leave out if you are trying to be transparent. (unless they are under some kind of gag order due to an ongoing investigation, in which case, yikes.) If they were not legally compelled, then the only other explanation is Mullvad made a voluntary decision to remove PF, which means they are not being neutral and have chosen to discriminate against a technology widely used by p2p users (which the anti-p2p overlords definitely will be celebrating). It might have been for their own convenience, or for personal moral reasons, which is entirely within their rights if they choose to do so, but it is an odd stance for a VPN provider to take, and indicates a lack of willingness to fight on behalf of their users. It's also worth noting that in an earlier blog post, Mullvad claimed the recent law enforcement visit was their "first in 14 years", and that it was due to a "blackmail" case in Germany from 2021. For a service that is supposedly abused in the ways you describe, I find it hard to believe that their "first visit" would be over something as mundane as an old blackmail case. https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/5/2/update-the-swedish-authorities-answered-our-protocol-request/ If the climate has gotten so hostile that VPNs can now be legally compelled to remove essential features like port forwarding (there is thus far no concrete evidence of that being the case, only speculation), then all VPNs are in trouble, and we are truly in danger of losing the free and open internet as we know it.

Refugees are welcome to AirVPN. So welcome to AirVPN!

This is where AirVPN's superiority becomes overwhelming. From single port randomly assigned per-session to inability to selectively link ports to devices and keys and other missing options (such as remapping), the other services are now lagging fatally behind airvpn.