Hey, I am the creator of Narrowlink. I certainly find your comment valid, and using WireGuard over HTTPS most of the time provides better network performance. However, in very specific cases, Narrowlink demonstrates superior performance.

1- When your devices' routes are not optimal, and utilizing a CDN can enhance the connection due to smart routing. For instance, I have a server in Poland (while I live in Canada) where the direct connection is slower than connecting via Narrowlink behind the CDN (The gateway behind the CDN).

2- And in rare cases, Tailscale cannot establish a peer-to-peer connection, opting to use DERP servers and their own servers (no longer strictly P2P as seen here: https://tailscale.com/kb/1232/derp-servers/). In such cases, Narrowlink may provide faster connectivity.

3- When you start your Tailscale client, it needs to perform NAT discovery. If a symmetric NAT exists, it takes time to connect due to network flooding for UDP hole punching, while Narrowlink can respond on demand (see the section "The benefits of birthdays" on https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works/).

It's also important to note, alongside the protocol, the software implementation is crucial. Narrowlink is written purely in Rust, while Tailscale has been created by orchestrating existing tools and uses the Go and C++ programming languages. I suggest you try Narrowlink and experience its computational performance.

I believe Tailscale is an amazing VPN solution, but its protocol, infrastructure, and complexities might not be the best fit for self-hosted platforms. In contrast, Narrowlink is a Proxy solution (currently not a VPN) that is very simple to set up.

Please note that narrowlink only encapsulate the TCP payload's not its headers.

I recently released Narrowlink (just two days ago), and it is in the early stages of its journey. I have various plans for this project, including a web interface, integration of the QUIC protocol, and more. I just need the support of the community and more time to enhance it.