[lq0000]

> Like Hysteria, Brutal is designed for environments where the user knows the bandwidth of their connection, as this information is essential for Brutal to work.

They don't quite say that this is a bad idea for use over WAN. If they intentionally avoided ruling out such usage in this qualification, they're making an implicit assumption here that either the last-mile connection or the endpoints themselves are going to be the bottleneck. If some router in between is having a bad day, it would definitely make its day worse.

edit: I wasn't familiar with Hysteria but now that I'm reading those docs, I guess the intent is for this to be used on the internet. In that case, it does seem pretty like it'd be pretty adversarial to run this. I bet if it saw widespread adoption it'd make ISPs pretty upset.

edit 2: Going slightly off-topic now, but I wonder if the bandwidth profile of Hysteria compromises its HTTP/3 masquerade?

[NeverBehave]

It is intentionally used on WAN. Brutal part of Hysteria(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38026756) internal components, and Hysteria is a proxy made for people in China under censorship, where outbound Internet access is heavily degraded.

[rfoo]

> but I wonder if the bandwidth profile of Hysteria compromises its HTTP/3 masquerade?

Most likely so. GFW is not able to reassemble and analyze QUIC (and AFAIK, any UDP-based multiplexed protocol) traffic, yet. If Hysteria takes off, GFW will try to kill it and so far it's likely to be degraded severely just as Shadowsocks, V2Ray or (ironically) Trojan.

Very few "censorship-resistance" proxy implementations out of China were designed to systematically evade traffic analysis, they usually just avoid general techniques and rely on being niche enough to fly under radar. Which is not wrong: being diverse is also a good strategy.