5 ms·

This isn't a limitation of PeerJS or event WebRTC. This is a limitation imposed by IPv4 implementations that include NAT and PAT. These services in the middle

This isn't a limitation of PeerJS or event WebRTC. This is a limitation imposed by IPv4 implementations that include NAT and PAT. These services in the middle are there to create tunnels as a mutually available broker for all concerned end points. Even after the connection is established additional third party services are still required for authentication, identity management (trust/certificates/keys), and possibly codec resolution. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebRTC_API#protocols https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebRTC_API#... If all parties were IPv6 first they would still need the secondary services mentioned above, but they could likely broker a direct peer-to-peer connection without a separate service provider.

the8472 6y ago
It very much is a limitation of WebRTC. Real sockets perform better than webrtc since they can attempt NAT traversal or talk to the CPE to perform port forwarding, something that you can't do from a browser. Otherwise p2p filesharing wouldn't work. You may not get perfect connectivity this way since not all NATs can be bypassed but on the other hand webrtc does not work at all without signalling.
- austincheney 6y ago
  Sockets, TCP sockets, are TCP packets in a stream of a given format. TCP is layer 4. IP is layer 3. Other socket protocols are layer 7 or an implementation of UDP. That being said there is no bypassing of NAT, but you can tunnel through it provided an open connection from within the network. For example HTTP cannot connect to a computer inside a NAT network but it can send a response to a request from inside that network. Most P2P services make use of a central server to connect users no differently from instant messaging, and thus these services are generally considered a backdoor into a network. BitTorrent is different because it makes use of two protocols doing different things simultaneously.
  - the8472 6y ago
    > That being said there is no bypassing of NAT There are several. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_traversal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_traversal The approaches don't always work, but often are sufficient for consumer grade routers. > For example HTTP cannot connect to a computer inside a NAT network but it can send a response to a request from inside that network. Well yeah, that's HTTP. It's a client-server protocol. There is no coordination in connection setup. And it's TCP. It's not designed to do the necessary gymnastics to establish incoming connections through a NAT. So HTTP being HTTP is not an argument for NAT traversal being impossible. a) it's much easier with UDP where you can multiplex incoming and outgoing traffic over a single socket and it'll work for any remote peer as long as your UDP NAT uses EIMs.
judge2020 6y ago
This is also why torrents have trackers - unless you scan 0.0.0.0/0, you'd have no idea what IPs are peers for a torrent without a tracker.
- dest 6y ago
  You can use DHT / Kademlia for this purpose

the8472 6y ago

It very much is a limitation of WebRTC. Real sockets perform better than webrtc since they can attempt NAT traversal or talk to the CPE to perform port forwarding, something that you can't do from a browser. Otherwise p2p filesharing wouldn't work. You may not get perfect connectivity this way since not all NATs can be bypassed but on the other hand webrtc does not work at all without signalling.

austincheney 6y ago
Sockets, TCP sockets, are TCP packets in a stream of a given format. TCP is layer 4. IP is layer 3. Other socket protocols are layer 7 or an implementation of UDP. That being said there is no bypassing of NAT, but you can tunnel through it provided an open connection from within the network. For example HTTP cannot connect to a computer inside a NAT network but it can send a response to a request from inside that network. Most P2P services make use of a central server to connect users no differently from instant messaging, and thus these services are generally considered a backdoor into a network. BitTorrent is different because it makes use of two protocols doing different things simultaneously.
- the8472 6y ago
  > That being said there is no bypassing of NAT There are several. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_traversal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_traversal The approaches don't always work, but often are sufficient for consumer grade routers. > For example HTTP cannot connect to a computer inside a NAT network but it can send a response to a request from inside that network. Well yeah, that's HTTP. It's a client-server protocol. There is no coordination in connection setup. And it's TCP. It's not designed to do the necessary gymnastics to establish incoming connections through a NAT. So HTTP being HTTP is not an argument for NAT traversal being impossible. a) it's much easier with UDP where you can multiplex incoming and outgoing traffic over a single socket and it'll work for any remote peer as long as your UDP NAT uses EIMs.

judge2020 6y ago

This is also why torrents have trackers - unless you scan 0.0.0.0/0, you'd have no idea what IPs are peers for a torrent without a tracker.

dest 6y ago
You can use DHT / Kademlia for this purpose