Network protocols and protocol suites
SingLink 2.0 · WireGuard · OpenVPN · IKEv2/IPsec
Define connection setup, authentication, encryption, data transport, session recovery or network roaming.
VPN PROTOCOL GUIDE · 2026
VPN Protocol Comparison and Selection Guide
Compare the design boundaries of SingLink 2.0, WireGuard, OpenVPN and IKEv2/IPsec using official specifications, project documentation and SingLink technical materials, while clarifying the role of proxy platforms such as Clash, sing-box and V2Ray.
01 · Network protocols02 · Proxy platforms03 · Service policies
COMPARISON BOUNDARIES
Separate protocols, platforms and service policies
Similar names do not mean identical technical roles. Protocols define communication rules, platforms configure and combine protocols, and service policies govern operations and data handling.
Proxy platforms and network engines
Clash/Mihomo · sing-box · V2Ray
Parse configuration, route traffic, combine inbound and outbound connections and invoke multiple protocols. They should not be scored as if they were individual VPN protocols.
VPN services and operating policies
Zero logs · Data retention · Server operations · Support
These depend on provider architecture and operating commitments. Zero logging is not a protocol switch.
EVIDENCE METHOD
Publish only verifiable technical conclusions
This guide does not use stability percentages, star ratings or absolute speed rankings without public test conditions. Every conclusion is presented with its source and scope.
Official specification
Specifications published by protocol authors, standards bodies or official maintainers.
Public project documentation
Official documentation, public source code and maintainer statements.
Public SingLink design
Design boundaries disclosed by the SingLink whitepaper and technical report.
Environment-dependent validation
Performance and availability vary with device, server and network conditions.
“Not publicly documented” does not mean insecure. It means the public evidence is insufficient for a more specific conclusion.
LIKE-FOR-LIKE PROTOCOLS
Design and use cases of four protocol families
This table summarizes published technical characteristics rather than declaring an absolute winner. Results also depend on implementation, server, distance, network quality and configuration.
| Dimension | SingLink 2.0 | WireGuard | OpenVPN | IKEv2/IPsec |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positioning | A next-generation protocol architecture used by a managed VPN service | A compact layer-3 secure network tunnel | A mature open-source VPN protocol and implementation | Standardized key exchange used with IPsec |
| Public material | Official whitepaper and technical report | Public protocol description plus kernel and user-space implementations | Public source code, manual and community documentation | IETF RFCs and implementations built into many platforms |
| TCP and UDP | The public design covers TCP, UDP and the connection lifecycle | Carries IP packets over UDP | Can transport over UDP or TCP | Usually carries IPsec traffic over UDP |
| Mobile roaming | The public design includes network changes, recovery and server selection | Supports endpoint changes; client experience depends on implementation | Can reconnect; recovery time depends on configuration and implementation | Well suited to native mobile roaming where MOBIKE is implemented |
| Obfuscation | Available according to SingLink version, server and service configuration | The base protocol does not target traffic obfuscation | Usually requires an additional transport or external layer | The base protocol does not target traffic obfuscation |
| Deployment | Managed by SingLinkVPN apps and servers | Suitable for self-hosting, system integration and commercial VPN services | Suitable for self-hosting, enterprise compatibility and commercial services | Common in native operating-system VPN clients and enterprise environments |
| Best fit | Users who want managed servers, routing, recovery and one-tap connection | Operators who value a compact implementation and self-hosting | Deployments that value a mature ecosystem, compatibility and detailed control | Native system integration and enterprise authentication |
PLATFORMS ARE NOT PROTOCOLS
What Clash, sing-box and V2Ray actually do
These projects can carry, combine or manage multiple protocols. They should be compared by platform responsibilities rather than scored against a single VPN protocol.
| Project | Positioning | Primary role | Public boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clash / Mihomo | Rule-based proxy engine | Configures proxy outbounds, routing rules, DNS and traffic policies. | Security and connection behavior depend on the selected outbound protocol, configuration and maintained version. |
| sing-box | Universal proxy platform | Provides inbound, outbound, DNS, routing and multi-protocol support. | The platform is not one VPN protocol. Different outbounds use different security models. |
| V2Ray | Network proxy platform | Builds proxy connections with composable transports, routing and protocol components. | It must be assessed by the selected protocol, transport and deployment configuration, not the platform name alone. |
SINGLINK 2.0
The complete connection lifecycle
SingLink 2.0 materials divide a connection into control-plane work, DNS and routing, authentication, transport, recovery and state cleanup. This is a summary of the published flow.
01
Configuration retrieval
The client obtains the account, server and protocol settings needed for the current connection.
02
DNS and routing decision
Resolution and traffic paths are selected from the domain, destination, rules and network state.
03
Authentication and session setup
The client validates the server, negotiates keys and creates session state.
04
TCP and UDP transport
Reliable streams, datagrams, flow control and MTU are handled according to connection type.
05
Network roaming and recovery
Network changes, failures, reconnection and server reselection are handled.
06
Session close and state cleanup
The connection is closed and temporary state that is no longer needed is cleared.
TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
Design explanation, whitepaper and security verification
The three resources have different jobs: the technical report explains operation, the whitepaper defines the public design and the independent audit verifies the versions and scope listed in its report.
Technical analysis
SingLink 2.0 technical report
Explains configuration, DNS, routing, authentication, sessions, TCP, UDP, recovery and cleanup.
Read the technical reportOfficial technical document
SingLink protocol whitepaper
Documents protocol and app versions, control and data planes, reference models, test boundaries and public evidence status.
Read the official whitepaperIndependent verification
2026 cross-platform security audit
Review tested versions, platform scope, findings, limitations, report files and SHA-256 verification material.
View the security auditThe SingLink 2.0 technical report is an official technical analysis, not an independent security audit. The two are labeled separately.
SELECTION GUIDE
Choose by use case, not by name alone
No protocol fits every network. Consider app support, server implementation, local network conditions, operating cost and available evidence.
Managed one-tap VPN
SingLink 2.0
For users who want the app to manage servers, routing, recovery and protocol configuration.
Compact self-hosted tunnel
WireGuard
For operators who can manage keys, routing and servers and value a compact implementation.
Enterprise compatibility and control
OpenVPN
A mature ecosystem and extensive configuration suit compatibility-focused deployments.
Native systems and mobile devices
IKEv2/IPsec
Common in built-in system clients and enterprise authentication environments.
Multi-protocol proxy and rules
sing-box or Mihomo
Requires choosing outbound protocols, maintaining configuration and understanding each protocol boundary.
Restricted or complex networks
Validate in the current network
Availability changes by region, carrier and time. Test current servers and transports directly.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
VPN protocols and proxy platforms
What is a VPN protocol?
A VPN protocol defines how a client and server connect, authenticate, negotiate keys, carry data and handle failures. Security also depends on implementation, configuration and service operations.
How do WireGuard and OpenVPN differ?
WireGuard emphasizes a compact protocol and smaller implementation scope. OpenVPN offers a mature ecosystem, extensive configuration and broad compatibility. Results depend on device, server, distance and network.
Is Clash a VPN protocol?
No. Clash and its actively maintained derivative Mihomo are rule-based proxy engines that manage outbound protocols, DNS and routing rules.
Is sing-box a VPN protocol?
No. sing-box describes itself as a universal proxy platform with inbound, outbound, DNS, routing and multi-protocol capabilities.
Is zero logging a VPN protocol feature?
Not by itself. Zero logging depends on server-side data processing, system architecture and operating policy, and cannot be inferred from the transport protocol alone.
How does SingLink 2.0 differ from app version 2.0?
SingLink 2.0 identifies protocol architecture and server capability. App version numbers identify software releases. The two version systems are managed independently.
How do SingLink Beta and SingLink 2.0 differ?
Beta servers provide broad compatibility and ongoing iteration. SingLink 2.0 servers use the second-generation architecture. Current access depends on the plan and server labels shown in the app.
Which VPN protocol is fastest?
There is no permanent answer without test conditions. Protocol overhead is only one factor; device performance, server load, distance, MTU, carrier and congestion can all change results.
Start with evidence you can verify
Read primary specifications, check implementation boundaries and test on your own device and network. This guide, the whitepaper, security audit and feed use real revision dates.