4 ms·

To understand the terms: webrtc, stun, turn, mesh, sfu, mcu, ice and trickle ice, there is (1). 15 minutes to understand what is all this about. What about IPv6

To understand the terms: webrtc, stun, turn, mesh, sfu, mcu, ice and trickle ice, there is (1). 15 minutes to understand what is all this about. What about IPv6 stun and turn?, it seems other people asked the same idea I thought: (2) bout all of this, one is the answer is: As IPv6 takes over the complexity of new networks, STUN and ICE will become irrelevant. I think that with the surge in video conferences and rtc, ipv6 with take off. In my very humble opinion, I would suggest to reserve some address space in IPv6 for rtc, so that a peer is able to adopt a new special ip reserved for rtc. Nothing new under the sun, in 2014 someone comment along this line of thought (2) and (3). So what are we waiting for? (1) https://webrtcglossary.com/ https://webrtcglossary.com/ (2) https://www.quora.com/Will-the-IPv6-result-in-the-death-of-STUN-and-ICE https://www.quora.com/Will-the-IPv6-result-in-the-death-of-S... (3) 2014, AshleysBrain, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7496986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7496986 I think the solution is IPv6. Once every device on the Internet is uniquely addressable again, we can do away with these NAT hacks and two endpoints should be able to reliably connect to each other again, no matter where they are. Of course, that's assuming we don't get more short-sighted engineering that breaks things again...

supermatt 6y ago
addressable !== routeable !== reachable. IPv6 will certainly REDUCE the need for STUN, but there are still (many) cases where you don't want to be "reachable by default", in which case you need a stable reference for negotiating routing and reachability (e.g. STUN).
- manthideaal 6y ago
  IPv6 could have and address for "reachable by default", I find that very useful, also IPv6 allow many addresses so that is not wasteful.
  - supermatt 6y ago
    Yeah, but if it’s reachable by default then it’s (by definition) open to the world. Otherwise (if you mean routable by default) you will still end up temporarily punching holes in your firewall, which you will need to close afterwards, and possibly recycling your ip so you aren’t still routable on that last used address. sounds like you would personally end up being a STUN server!
ibc 6y ago
Thanks for the SPAM. Let's talk about whatever you wish to say.
- manthideaal 6y ago
  In order to send a datagram to multiple IP the first, and naive idea, one can think of is to change the datagram protocol to allow for multiple destination. Today, 2020, is the right time. I am thinking about platforms that have hundred or thousand of simultaneous receiving ends, so that the branching point occurs near the destination. Again, googling this proposal is not new (1) RFC 1770, category informational. Edited: It seem that RtcDataChannel can be used with SFU, example LiveSwitch in 2018, but they don't use multiple destination datagrams (3) More on similar proposal (2). (1) IPv4 Option for Sender Directed Multi-Destination Delivery. The Selective Directed Broadcast Mode (SDBM) is an integral part of the U.S. Army standard for tactical data communication networks as defined in MIL-STD-188-220(). (2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238663190_IPv4_Option_for_Sender_Directed_Multi-Destination_Delivery https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238663190_IPv4_Opti... (3) https://www.frozenmountain.com/developers/blog/archive/industry-first-liveswitch-can-now-broadcast-data-channels-over-sfu-and-mcu/ https://www.frozenmountain.com/developers/blog/archive/indus...
  - ibc 6y ago
    Again, thanks for the SPAM. And you are wrong. RTP video cannot be sent that way because each receiver must also send back feedback to the sender. RTP protocol is more complex than just sending UDP packets everywhere.
    - manthideaal 6y ago
      Each receiver sending feedback does not prevent the server for using datagrams with multiple destinations. I can see that each peer use a different resolution and bitrate but that is another layer, is like sending information at several resolutions and each peer selecting the best one. Edited: I must learn something about multicast in IPv6, the idea seems interesting.

supermatt 6y ago

addressable !== routeable !== reachable. IPv6 will certainly REDUCE the need for STUN, but there are still (many) cases where you don't want to be "reachable by default", in which case you need a stable reference for negotiating routing and reachability (e.g. STUN).

manthideaal 6y ago
IPv6 could have and address for "reachable by default", I find that very useful, also IPv6 allow many addresses so that is not wasteful.
- supermatt 6y ago
  Yeah, but if it’s reachable by default then it’s (by definition) open to the world. Otherwise (if you mean routable by default) you will still end up temporarily punching holes in your firewall, which you will need to close afterwards, and possibly recycling your ip so you aren’t still routable on that last used address. sounds like you would personally end up being a STUN server!

ibc 6y ago

Thanks for the SPAM. Let's talk about whatever you wish to say.

manthideaal 6y ago
In order to send a datagram to multiple IP the first, and naive idea, one can think of is to change the datagram protocol to allow for multiple destination. Today, 2020, is the right time. I am thinking about platforms that have hundred or thousand of simultaneous receiving ends, so that the branching point occurs near the destination. Again, googling this proposal is not new (1) RFC 1770, category informational. Edited: It seem that RtcDataChannel can be used with SFU, example LiveSwitch in 2018, but they don't use multiple destination datagrams (3) More on similar proposal (2). (1) IPv4 Option for Sender Directed Multi-Destination Delivery. The Selective Directed Broadcast Mode (SDBM) is an integral part of the U.S. Army standard for tactical data communication networks as defined in MIL-STD-188-220(). (2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238663190_IPv4_Option_for_Sender_Directed_Multi-Destination_Delivery https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238663190_IPv4_Opti... (3) https://www.frozenmountain.com/developers/blog/archive/industry-first-liveswitch-can-now-broadcast-data-channels-over-sfu-and-mcu/ https://www.frozenmountain.com/developers/blog/archive/indus...
- ibc 6y ago
  Again, thanks for the SPAM. And you are wrong. RTP video cannot be sent that way because each receiver must also send back feedback to the sender. RTP protocol is more complex than just sending UDP packets everywhere.
  - manthideaal 6y ago
    Each receiver sending feedback does not prevent the server for using datagrams with multiple destinations. I can see that each peer use a different resolution and bitrate but that is another layer, is like sending information at several resolutions and each peer selecting the best one. Edited: I must learn something about multicast in IPv6, the idea seems interesting.