[GH-ISSUE #985] Different configuration for each port range, especially the configuration of the token #780

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-05-05 12:29:57 -06:00 by gitea-mirror · 3 comments

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 12:29:57 -06:00

Owner

Originally created by @netzmal on GitHub (Nov 27, 2018).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/fatedier/frp/issues/985

I would like to extend the "server" (frps) by several sections in the INI file to connect multiple clients with different tokens.

The configuration remains compatible, the INI [common] section keeps the default configuration. In the other sections, an additional port range, a different token, ... can be configured.

What do you think of this change? And how do I best proceed?

Originally created by @netzmal on GitHub (Nov 27, 2018). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/fatedier/frp/issues/985 I would like to extend the "server" (frps) by several sections in the INI file to connect multiple clients with different tokens. The configuration remains compatible, the INI [common] section keeps the default configuration. In the other sections, an additional port range, a different token, ... can be configured. What do you think of this change? And how do I best proceed?

gitea-mirror

2026-05-05 12:29:57 -06:00

closed this issue
added the
no plan
label

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 12:30:00 -06:00

Author

Owner

@fatedier commented on GitHub (Nov 30, 2018):

It's not the future plan to Increase complexity for admin control and account management.
I would like to keep it a simple tool for developing and testing. Maybe other features could be developed in other projects.
You can keep it in your own repo and improve it.

@fatedier commented on GitHub (Nov 30, 2018): It's not the future plan to Increase complexity for admin control and account management. I would like to keep it a simple tool for developing and testing. Maybe other features could be developed in other projects. You can keep it in your own repo and improve it.

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 12:30:01 -06:00

Author

Owner

@netzmal commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2018):

I don't think this little fix complicates the configuration. Especially since the configuration still works as before.

But it increases the security of a server with many IoT devices. Not every device has to know the token of the other device. Especially in this area I see great potential for this great software.

@netzmal commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2018): I don't think this little fix complicates the configuration. Especially since the configuration still works as before. But it increases the security of a server with many IoT devices. Not every device has to know the token of the other device. Especially in this area I see great potential for this great software.

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 12:30:02 -06:00

Author

Owner

@fatedier commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2018):

Admin control and account management is not the future plan. I don't want to spend much time adapting code to these features. It's complicated not only the configuration.

Anything about a reverse proxy and performance improment is welcome.

@fatedier commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2018): Admin control and account management is not the future plan. I don't want to spend much time adapting code to these features. It's complicated not only the configuration. Anything about a reverse proxy and performance improment is welcome.