did i just finish my reverse proxy?????

A homegrown reverse proxy is being built to sit between TCP game clients and dynamically selected game servers—handling authentication, server selection, and bidirectional packet forwarding while keeping connection lifecycle clean. The core goal is straightforward: a client connects, sends an authentication packet, the proxy verifies it, chooses (or creates) an appropriate game server, opens a new TCP connection to that server, and then relays packets back and forth until either side disconnects.

The system’s flow starts with a custom TCP protocol rather than HTTP. After the client connects, the proxy expects an initial “auth packet” identifying the client. Once authentication succeeds, the proxy checks available servers. If none are suitable, it triggers a server-creation path—described as “matchmaking” but more accurately server selection—so the client can be routed to a ready game instance. When a server is selected, the proxy establishes a second TCP connection to the game server, forwards any initial game settings back to the client, and then enters a middle-man loop that forwards packets in both directions.

A key implementation detail is how packets are framed over raw TCP. Because TCP is reliable but not message-oriented, the proxy uses “packet framers” to parse a hand-rolled packet format. The framing logic is intentionally lightweight: it reads specific bytes to determine packet length, then forwards the packet payload without deeper parsing. Connection handling is similarly direct: it watches for connection-close events and errors, writes close signals across the wire, and tears down both sides when either endpoint disconnects.

Before the proxy logic, the project invests heavily in simulation testing. A local environment is created using a SQLite-backed configuration and tables. Test runs can be bounded (for example, failing if they exceed five seconds), and the environment can be hydrated into known states with preconfigured tables and connections. A factory generates clients, connects them, asserts that clients reach both the matchmaking layer and the game server, and verifies server-farm stats before disconnecting and re-checking. The result is a repeatable harness that can run through connection and lifecycle scenarios without needing live infrastructure.

On the proxy side, the code checks whether new connections are allowed, wraps connection context, authenticates the first packet, performs server selection, then creates and verifies a game-server-side authentication handshake before granting the client access. Lifecycle management is handled by running the same packet-forwarding logic for both directions, with deliberate duplication to avoid premature abstraction.

Security and scaling trade-offs are front and center. The builder worries that letting clients connect directly to game servers could enable attacks aimed at disrupting other players. A reverse proxy can centralize defenses, but it also becomes a shared target—so the plan includes rate limiting, packet behavior checks, and potentially server-side logic to kick or ban abusive clients. There’s also a strong pull toward pushing filtering down to eBPF for performance, after gaining confidence that the current “fun first” implementation won’t break core assumptions.

The biggest takeaway is less about any single proxy feature and more about the value of good simulations: the builder wants randomized client placement, drops, and connection ordering to be reproducible in the exact same sequence every run, enabling more reliable stress testing as the system approaches production readiness.