Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Shells Virtual Desktop
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Server.net
CPLicense.net
VPS Server
Buy VPN
Vultr
VMs for AI
HostDare
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
InterServer VPS
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Best VPN
High-Performance Bare Metal Server Solutions
Karvl.com
Server Mania Cloud Hosting
DataWagon Hosting
AlphaVPS Hosting
Evoxt.com
Clouvider
VPS Hosting with NVMe
Residential IPs in the US & 4G Mobile Proxies in EU & US with Unlimited Bandwidth
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
Rabisu - Hosting Solutions
Shells Virtual Desktop

In this Discussion

New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

[WANTED] VPS / Dedicated with Flexible Networking (Low Egress Filtering / Raw Packet Support)

FarzadFarzad Member

Hello,

I’m looking for a VPS or dedicated server with minimal outbound restrictions and maximum networking flexibility.

Context:
I operate in a network environment with heavy outbound filtering and DPI, where conventional protocols and tunnels are not reliable. I’m currently developing and testing custom transport methods at packet level to maintain stable connectivity to external infrastructure.

What I specifically need:

  • Little to no egress filtering (or at least not strictly enforced)
  • Support for raw sockets / custom packet crafting
  • No strict IP/MAC binding limitations
  • KVM or baremetal preferred (no heavy virtualization restrictions)
  • EU or nearby regions preferred

Important:
This is strictly for connectivity research and tunnel development under restricted networks.
No abusive traffic, no scanning, no flooding.

If your network is less restrictive than typical providers, feel free to reply or PM.

Thanks

Comments

  • forestforest Member

    Do you count BCP 38 as "egress filtering"?

  • FarzadFarzad Member

    @forest said:
    Do you count BCP 38 as "egress filtering"?

    Yes — I consider BCP38 enforcement to be a form of strict egress filtering at the network edge.

    What I’m trying to understand is whether your network applies it uniformly across all nodes and upstreams, or if there are cases where outbound traffic handling is more flexible (e.g. less strict source validation).

    I’m working with non-standard transport methods under constrained conditions, so environments with less aggressive filtering tend to behave much better for my use case.

    Appreciate the clarcation.

  • forestforest Member
    edited April 5

    @Farzad said:

    @forest said:
    Do you count BCP 38 as "egress filtering"?

    Yes — I consider BCP38 enforcement to be a form of strict egress filtering at the network edge.

    What I’m trying to understand is whether your network applies it uniformly across all nodes and upstreams, or if there are cases where outbound traffic handling is more flexible (e.g. less strict source validation).

    I’m working with non-standard transport methods under constrained conditions, so environments with less aggressive filtering tend to behave much better for my use case.

    Appreciate the clarcation.

    Since source IP spoofing is so often used for malicious purposes, you'll have a hard time convincing any host to trust you. Do you have any presence online as a networking researcher? Do you have a website, any published papers, etc?

    If it's purely for low-bandwidth testing, would you be okay with a heavily throttled connection (in terms of throughput and PPS) to eliminate any possibility of DoS or malicious scanning? Accepting that might help increase trust.

  • FarzadFarzad Member

    @forest said:

    @Farzad said:

    @forest said:
    Do you count BCP 38 as "egress filtering"?

    Yes — I consider BCP38 enforcement to be a form of strict egress filtering at the network edge.

    What I’m trying to understand is whether your network applies it uniformly across all nodes and upstreams, or if there are cases where outbound traffic handling is more flexible (e.g. less strict source validation).

    I’m working with non-standard transport methods under constrained conditions, so environments with less aggressive filtering tend to behave much better for my use case.

    Appreciate the clarcation.

    Since source IP spoofing is so often used for malicious purposes, you'll have a hard time convincing any host to trust you. Do you have any presence online as a networking researcher? Do you have a website, any published papers, etc?

    If it's purely for low-bandwidth testing, would you be okay with a heavily throttled connection (in terms of throughput and PPS) to eliminate any possibility of DoS or malicious scanning? Accepting that might help increase trust.

    Thanks for the thoughtful questions — makes sense.

    I’ll send you a PM with a bit more detail so we don’t clutter the thread.

  • FarzadFarzad Member

    Update / Clarification:

    To reduce any concerns around abuse:

    • I’m completely fine with very strict limits (e.g. ≤100 PPS and very low bandwidth such as ~64 Kbps)
    • No need for high throughput — this is strictly low-volume testing
    • No scanning, flooding, or disruptive traffic

    The goal is only to test connectivity behavior under constrained conditions using non-standard packet handling.

    If you have any nodes or locations with less strict outbound filtering, even under heavy throttling or special conditions, that would be sufficient for my use case.

    Thanked by 1forest
Sign In or Register to comment.